for their self-preservation and security in the earlier periods, such
as the hill-forts, crannogs, and brochs, were described. During the
period under consideration a new form of defensive work was gradually
introduced, usually called the Norman type of castle. The earliest
remains of castles of this style in Scotland belong to the thirteenth
century, and the best examples of them were the castles of Hermitage,
Lochindorb, Bothwell, Kildrummy, Caerlaverock, and Dirleton. These
appear to have been built in the later half of the thirteenth century.
Massive walls of enormous strength were the chief features of these
structures; but they presented little distinctive art characteristics,
as strength and defence was the original idea and end contemplated by
their owners.
At the time of Haco’s invasion the royal castles on the coasts were
inspected, and their stores and defensive appliances increased. On the
eve of the outbreak of the War of Independence, the castles held by
the Crown numbered about thirty. In the southern quarter of the kingdom
there were the castles of Berwick, Roxburgh, Jedburgh, and Edinburgh;
inward and westward the castles of Kirkcudbright, Wigtown, Dumfries,
Dumbarton, Ayr, Tarbet, and the important fortress of Stirling;
northwards the castles of Dundee, Forfar, Kincardine, Aboyne, Cluny,
Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Nairn, Forres, Dingwall, Cromarty, and
Inverness; in the island of Bute the royal castle of Rothesay, which
was erected early in the thirteenth century, and several others. There
were also a number of castles in commanding positions in the hands
of the nobles; and besides these there were a considerable number of
partially fortified dwelling-houses.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Historical
Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 241, 263, _et seq._
The greater part of the houses in the burghs and the villages were
built of wood, or other materials which could easily be procured. Being
built of such combustible materials, they were very liable to catch
fire, and, as might be expected, great fires frequently occurred; in
the year 1244 several of the burghs were almost entirely consumed by
the flames.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Ancient
Laws of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages 14, 24, 40.
Reference was made in the Introduction to the early types of churches.
These primitive structures were succeeded by the regular church
architecture of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The chief
characteristic of the churches of the twelfth century was massive
masonry, short round pillars, semi-circular arches in windows and doors,
which sometimes inclined to the horse-shoe form; at first the style was
simple and comparatively plain, but it became excessively ornamented.
A number of specimens and fragments of this style remain, such as the
nave of the Abbey of Dunfermline, which was dedicated in 1150; the
Cathedral of Kirkwall founded in 1138, which was many years in process
of building, and the structure of which exhibits the characteristics of
the earlier and later styles. A part of the abbey church of Jedburgh,
and the church of Leuchars, in Fifeshire, belong to the early style;
the monastery of Kelso, some portions of a few rural churches in
the district of the Merse, and parts of the monasteries of Holyrood,
Arbroath, and the small chapel of St. Margaret in the Castle of
Edinburgh.¹
¹ Muir’s _Characteristics_; Walcott’s _Ancient Church of
Scotland_, 1874.
In the thirteenth century the prevailing style of church architecture
in Scotland was that which has usually been termed the early English
or the first pointed period. This was the great church building era
in Scotland; it was then that the fine old churches were erected, the
very ruins of which attest the skill and the excellent workmanship of
their builders. To this period the cathedrals of St. Andrews, Glasgow,
Brechin, Dunblane, Whithorn, Dornoch, and a portion of the cathedral
of Elgin, belong; the abbey churches of Paisley, Arbroath, Coldingham,
Kilwinning, Restennot, Dundrennan, Ferne, Cambuskenneth, Inchmahome,
Sweetheart, and Pluscardine, were either erected or begun to be built
in the thirteenth century, for it must be observed that these fine
structures were not rapidly built, as some of them were fifty years,
and even much longer, in building from the date of their foundation
till their completion.
The distinctive characteristics of the style of these churches were
the pointed arch, tall pillars clustered round a circular pier, often
divided by one or more bands, and with capitals, sometimes plain
or usually worked in profuse variety; long and narrow lancet-headed
windows, bold buttresses――in some examples unbroken, and in others
divided into stages; the roofs were high pitched, and, when of stone,
groined, and the crossings richly ornamented with bosses, but wooden
roofs were common; in the later specimens of the style high steeples
appeared. But a clear and just conception of the architectural features,
the symmetry, and the beauty, of these buildings can only be obtained
by actual observation of the structures themselves. For instance, the
Cathedral of Glasgow externally is not a very striking building, but if
a person enters and looks through its interior he will see one of the
finest sights even yet to be seen in that great city. The massive ruins
of the monastic buildings in Arbroath, and in other places mentioned
above, the parts of the walls of the Cathedral of Elgin, still
standing; and the Abbey Church of Paisley, with its sounding aisle,
amply attest the architectural skill and taste, and the excellence of
the workmanship of the period; and withal, they remain as the visible
emblems of the veneration and devotion of many generations of our
ancestors, and recall the memory of the departed worth and greatness of
the mighty dead.
As yet the internal means of communication were extremely defective. In
most parts of the country the roads were little better than mere tracks
for cattle, and pack-horses and packmen were employed to carry goods
through the kingdom. The bridges were mostly all built of wood. There
was a bridge over the Forth at Stirling, frequently mentioned in the
laws of the period; one over the Tay at Perth, one over the South Esk
at Brechin, and another over the North Esk. There were three bridges
over the Dee, one near Aberdeen and two farther up the river, and one
over the rapid Spey in 1224.
A considerable part of the land was under tillage, but the system of
agriculture was primitive and rude. Large herds of cattle, sheep, goats,
and swine, were reared, and some attention seems to have been given
to the breeding of horses. Dairy produce became a staple article of
domestic economy, and upon the Crown lands large quantities of cheese
were annually produced. David I. granted to the monks of Kelso the
tenth of the cheese which the Crown drew from Tweeddale, and to the
monks of Scone he gave the tenth of the can of his cheese from the
Crown lands of Gowrie, Scone, Cupar, and Forgrund, and similar grants
were made to other religious houses. It appears from the records of
the monasteries that poultry formed a branch of the farm economy of
the period. In the reign of Malcolm IV., on the feast of All-Saints
the monks of Scone received ten hens from each ploughland within their
territories, and the abbot of Kelso one hen from every house on the
lands of the monastery, for which he paid a halfpenny.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; Registers of Scone,
Kelso, and the Priory of St. Andrews.
The principal grain crop was oats, though barley and wheat, pease
and beans, were also grown. Wheat was chiefly raised in the southern
counties and the lowlands of Morayshire. Large quantities of oats
were ground into meal. Mills were numerous, and driven both by water
and wind, although the hand mill was still used. The royal burgh
communities placed restrictions on hand-mill grinding, and they enacted
that no one should presume to grind wheat, mixed grain, or rye, with
hand-mills, unless compelled by a storm or a scarcity of mills; and
if any one dared to contravene this he was deprived of his hand-mills
for ever, “and shall grind his malt at mills paying the 24th measure.”
The mill was one of the oldest rights of a barony, and it was amplified
by the addition of the multure dues and the sucken. Subsequently the
people were thirled to the mill, which meant that all the inhabitants
of the barony must send their corn to be ground at the barony mills.
The people of the barony often fought with each other as to their round
and order of service. One part of the service connected with the sucken
was the bringing home of the mill-stones. “Considering that there were
few or no roads, the simplest arrangement was to thrust a beam through
the hole, and then for the whole multitude to wheel it along upon its
edge――an operation of some difficulty and danger in a rough district.”
The barons’ mills, with their multure and dues, became one of the most
grievous forms of feudal oppression.¹
¹ _Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages 74, 85;
Innes’ _Legal Antiquities_, pages 47, 48.
A large quantity of grain was malted to make ale. The brew-houses
were numerous, and have continued to be so. Every barony and every
monastery had their brew-houses attached to them, and malt-ale held a
primary place in the domestic economy of the community. The burghs were
extremely jealous of the rights of brewing, and sometimes attempted to
restrict the number of brew-houses. They enacted “that no one without
the burghs shall have a brew-house unless he have a pit and gallows,
and then one brew-house only.”
In the reign of Alexander III. the crown lands were extensive and
valuable, especially in the north-eastern district of the kingdom. Of
these lands a portion was forest, another portion was domain directly
in the king’s hands, and cultivated by his bondmen, who seem to have
been yearly tenants. These bondmen, according to my interpretation,
were the descendants of the real owners of these lands, who were
dispossessed in the reigns of David I. and his two grandsons by the
feudal processes and expedients indicated in preceding pages. The free
tenants held the land on lease for a stipulated number of years or as
life renters at a fixed annual rent. A large portion of the Crown lands
was held under thanage; the thane of the thirteenth century in Scotland
was a Crown vassal, and held his land under a tenure called feu-farm.¹
At a later period thanages were converted into feudal holdings for
knight or military service. The bondmen were the actual tillers of
the soil, and the class above them――the free farmers on the Crown
lands――probably lived in easy and comfortable circumstances.
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 8, 10, 11,
_et seq._
The organisation in feudal earldoms and baronies has been already
explained. So far as ascertained, it appears that there was no class of
free tenants or farmers holding land by a lease for a term of years at
a fixed annual rent on the territories of the real feudal barons. Under
them as on the Crown lands, the actual cultivators of the soil were
bondmen or serfs――the descendants of the real owners and occupiers of
the land, who were dispossessed by the feudal processes and expedients
resorted to in the reigns of David I. and his two grandsons. Some of
the class of bondmen may have held land from year to year under the
feudal barons, but then they were merely tenants at the will of their
masters. There seems to have been at least two grades of bondmen:
one being attached to the land and transferred along with it when the
ownership of the land was changed: the other grade were actual slaves,
inasmuch as they could be bought and sold individually apart from
the land, like any other article of merchandise; and instances of
such sales of slaves frequently appear in the records. If they escaped
and ran away, then there were minute legal processes for retaking and
reclaiming them in any quarter of the kingdom, and replacing them in
the hands of their owners.¹
¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part I., Numbers 30, 37, 54, 58, 59;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I. _Charters
of Holyrood Abbey_; _Register of Dunfermline_. I entirely
dissent from Dr. Skene’s unwarranted inference to the effect
that these feudal bondmen and serfs were merely similar in
position and characteristics to the servile class in Celtic
times in Scotland. One would wish to see some evidence
adduced that such bondmen and serfs existed in Scotland
before the twelfth century. These serfs and bondmen were
created by the processes of feudalism in connection with the
land and in no other way; thus the land of Scotland belonged
to the Celtic people at the close of the eleventh century,
but ere the end of the succeeding century the Celtic people
were dispossessed of the greater and best part of the land,
which was given to Norman nobles, to the Church, and retained
in the hands of the kings. What else could have resulted
but the reduction of the original owners to serfdom? _Celtic
Scotland_, Volume III., pages 220‒223.
The fullest account of the agriculture of the period occurs in
connection with the church lands, where perhaps the most favourable
side of the rural people appear. According to a rent roll of the lands
belonging to the monastery of Kelso, about the year 1290, the monks
had extensive territories which were mostly held in their own hands
and cultivated from their granges. Their arable land was measured
in ploughgates, husbandlands, and oxgates; and pasture was measured
by the number of sheep which it sustained. An oxgate was thirteen
acres; and the husbandman who kept two oxen for the common plough, had
thus twenty-six acres, which was called a husbandland; four of these
neighbours joined in working their common plough, and their whole land
made a ploughgate, which meant the extent of land tilled by eight oxen,
or one hundred and four acres. A davoch of land in the eastern counties
was four hundred and sixteen acres, or four ploughgates. On the western
coast of the Highlands and in the islands, the lands were designated
as mark lands, half-mark lands, and penny lands; a mark land contained
thirty acres and two-thirds of an acre, and so in descending ratio to
half-mark, and penny lands.
At the grange or farmstead of the abbey, the chief home on each estate,
the cattle, the implements, the stores, and all the requisites for
the cultivation of the land were housed, the bondmen and the serfs who
tilled it, and their families. The serfs were the lowest class of the
community of the grange, and they were transferable like the land which
they laboured, and could be caught when they attempted to escape like
runaway sheep or oxen. The cottars were the next class above the serfs;
and each cottar had from one to nine acres of land along with his house,
for which he paid a small sum in money, and services in seedtime and
in harvest; some of the cottars had no land, but this seems to have
been an exception to the general system. Beyond the cottar’s huts stood
the establishments of the husbandmen, each of whom lived in his own
separate farmstead. The husbandmen held a definite portion of land for
which they paid a fixed rent, and specified services, which consisted
of work in harvest and sheep-shearing times, and carrying the wool
and the peats of the monastery. Another and higher class of tenant
held his lands by charter, and could not be ejected; his holding was
usually small, for fifty-two acres of land he paid eight shillings
of annual rent, and specified services in ploughing and in harvest
work. As already mentioned, the next and highest class of church feudal
vassals were almost equal in rank and wealth to the lesser barons and
freeholders of the Crown.¹
¹ _Register of Kelso_, pages 460‒463; Innes’ _Legal
Antiquities_, page 243. In Northumberland the farming of the
monastery was similar to that of Tweeddale. The monks of
Hexham had numerous and large estates mostly in Tindale-ward.
Among the benefactors of this monastery we find King David
of Scotland, his son, prince Henry, and his grandson William
the Lion, granting lands to it in Northumberland. At Hexham
as at Kelso, the monks farmed a portion of their lands
themselves; under them there were the husbandmen, who held
a varying extent of land; the cottars who held a portion
of land, usually under five acres, some had only one, others
two or three. The annual rent of these lands belonging
to the priory in Northumberland, ran from a sixpence to
a shilling per acre. The annual rent of a cottage was
from eighteenpence to two shillings; but in addition to
this there were services which the tenants had to perform,
such as a few days’ work at the mill or at hedging, in no
case, however, were the services burdensome. _Black Book of
Hexham_, Preface, pages 15‒20, 86.
In the thirteenth century the monks of Kelso had very large flocks
of sheep, more than 6,600, and considerable numbers of oxen, cows,
and swine. The monks of Melrose also had pretty large herds of cattle,
sheep, and swine, and it may be reasonably inferred that the other
great monasteries were equally rich and powerful in relation to the
desirable things of this world.¹
¹ _Register of Kelso._
In concluding this chapter let us recapitulate. The government, the
introduction of charters, the powers and privileges granted to the
Norman nobles in connection with the land and the people, and the
organisation of feudalism, have been explained. The customary law
of the country appeared to be passing into crude written forms. The
prevailing forms of trial, the modes of punishment, and the privileges
associated with sanctuaries, have been treated; and it was pointed out
that the conception of justice was not as yet distinctly discriminated
from the feeling of revenge. The incorporation of the burghs, their
internal organisation and characteristics, have been explained, and
burghs of regality and church burghs were noticed. The coinage and
the commerce of the kingdom, the progress of industry and of art have
been indicated. The re-organisation of the Church, the introduction
of regular orders of monks into the monasteries, the literature and
schools of the period, and the castles and church architecture have
been briefly treated. Finally, the state of agriculture, and the social
condition of the occupiers and tillers of the soil came under review,
different ranks of holders and occupiers of land were indicated, and
it appeared that in the processes associated with the introduction
of feudalism a great number of the people had been reduced to an abject
state of bondage and serfdom. Although material wealth, commerce,
and internal organisation, had progressed considerably during this
period, still the condition of society was unsatisfactory; the people
were vigorous, and if external oppression had not been so severe,
civilisation would have advanced at a more rapid pace.
CHAPTER V.
_Disputed Succession. War of Independence._
ON the death of the Maid of Norway the nation found itself without an
heir to the throne in the direct line of succession, and the signs of
a contest soon appeared. As soon as the tidings of the Queen’s death
became known, the Earls of Mar and Athole began to muster their army,
while Robert Bruce had surrounded himself with a body of his followers
and was moving through the kingdom and intently looking for more
supporters. At this crisis of the nation’s destiny William Fraser,
Bishop of St. Andrews, thought fit to counsel Edward I., and distinctly
suggested that he should interfere in the affairs of Scotland, and
at once advance towards the Border. Fraser may have wished to prevent
the shedding of blood in Scotland, as he said, but it is obvious that
the bishop had utterly misunderstood the character of the man whom
he assumed to advise.¹ Indeed, Edward I. needed no invitation; he had
already resolved to decide the fate of Scotland, formed his scheme,
chosen his own path, and directed his energy to its accomplishment
with great deliberation, while the current of events seemed exceedingly
favourable to him.
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 70.
Edward I. issued writs commanding his barons to attend him with horse
and arms at Norham on the 3rd of June, 1291; thus he prepared for
any emergency which might arise; while he invited the Scotch nobles
and clergy to a conference at Norham on the 10th of May, to which
they agreed. As yet Edward was proceeding with well studied policy,
smoothing his way, and the documents then sent into Scotland were
couched in the most courteous terms. The conference assembled at the
appointed time, and the business was opened by an address from the
Chief Justice of England. His Lordship strongly asserted that Edward I.
was the overlord of the kingdom of Scotland, and therefore he earnestly
appealed to the Scots to acknowledge this, that the settlement of the
great matter before them might be facilitated. The Scots replied that
they were not aware if such a right of feudal superiority belonged to
him, and requested time to consult with the absent nobles, the clergy,
and the community of the kingdom, before giving an answer. Three weeks
were allowed to them, and then all were to reassemble at Norham. A
clear answer was to be given on the question of the superiority of
Edward I., and all those demurring to it or in any way opposing it,
were requested to produce the documents or other evidence on which they
founded their objections. The adjournment was favourable to Edward,
as it tended to bring into prominence the real difficulties associated
with the case.
At the appointed time the meeting assembled on a green plain opposite
the Castle of Norham, and eight claimants for the crown of Scotland
appeared, namely, John Baliol, Lord of Galloway; Robert Bruce, Lord of
Annandale; Lord John Hastings; John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch; Patrick
of Dunbar; Earl of March; Florence Count of Holland; John Vesy for his
father, Nicholas Soulis; and William Ross, and they were accompanied
by many of the nobles and clergy. None of these claimants were very
near in relationship to the royal line of the Scottish kings; the three
first names in the list stood nearest and their claims were almost
equal. Thus David, Earl of Huntingdon, was a grandson of David I.,
and a younger brother of Malcolm IV. and William the Lion. This Earl
David, as stated in a preceding note,¹ had three daughters, Margaret,
Isabella, and Ada, and John Baliol claimed as a grandson of Margaret,
the eldest daughter; Robert Bruce claimed as a son of Isabella, the
second daughter; and John Hastings claimed as a grandson of Ada, the
youngest daughter. So it was seen, at an early stage of the proceedings,
that the real contest for the crown would lie between these three
claimants. An interesting and peculiar characteristic of the whole
of these claims for the crown was that they had all originated from
marriages with females, who were related to the royal family of
Scotland, and it must be admitted that in the art of contracting
marriages the Norman nobles were really great men.
¹ Under page 204.
The Bishop of Bath began the business of the meeting by reading the
King’s speech, which, after referring to the unhappy state of Scotland,
proceeded in a fine flowing style to characterise the benignity of
the illustrious prince who had come to her rescue. He then said that
his royal master had allowed three weeks to the nobles and clergy of
Scotland to bring forward whatever they could to impugn King Edward’s
right of superiority over that kingdom, and they had adduced nothing
to invalidate it. But, in connection with this emphatic statement, one
important fact has recently been brought to light, for a contemporary
record proves that the community of Scotland lodged an answer in
writing against Edward’s claim and demand of feudal superiority;
although it was not deemed relevant by Edward, as it was more
convenient for him and the claimants of the Crown to ignore the people.
The claimants, in their feverish heat to reach the throne, seem to
have utterly forgotten that there was a community in the kingdom. When
all disturbing questions were brushed aside, Edward announced that
his title of Lord Superior was indisputed, and therefore he intended
to act in that character. Robert Bruce was then asked whether he was
willing to prosecute his claim to the Crown of Scotland in the Court of
the Lord Superior; and Bruce, in the presence of the meeting, expressly
recognised Edward as Lord Superior, and agreed to abide by his decision.
The same question was put to each of the claimants, and they all
consented without reserve to the demand of Edward, and immediately
sealed their consent by letters patent.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 227,
228; Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 240‒245, 250.
None of the Scotch nobles or clergy entered any protest, and they
appear to have acquiesced in the proceedings and the result of this
meeting. The claimants then proceeded a step further in the pursuit
of their object, and in order that justice might be done to their
claims, they at once made Edward Lord Superior of Scotland in reality.
Thus:――“Inasmuch as the aforesaid King of England, cannot such manner
of cognisance make and accomplish with judgment, and that judgment
ought not to pass without execution, and that execution he cannot do in
due manner without possession and seisin of the same lands and castles;
we will, concede, and grant that he, as Sovereign Lord to perform the
things aforesaid, have seisin of all the lands and castles of Scotland
till right be done and performed to the claimants.”¹ It appears that
the claimants of the Crown, and the nobles and clergy present at the
meeting, actually transferred, or rather sold, the kingdom to Edward I.
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 71.
The new Lord Superior did not let his powers lie dormant. He
immediately commanded that all the castles in the kingdom should be
surrendered into his hands; he reconstituted the government of the
country, and appointed an Englishman to advise it; and the old seal of
Scotland was broken into four pieces, and a new one made, more suited
to the changed circumstances. A herald then proclaimed the peace of
King Edward, as Lord Paramount of the Realm.
He next commanded the guardians of Scotland to exact from the Scots
the oath of allegiance to him as Lord Superior of the kingdom. Stations
were fixed where attendance should be given, and the swearing-in
process began on the 23rd of July, 1291, and was continued for fifteen
days. Edward himself visited many of the stations, proceeding by
Edinburgh, Linlithgow, Stirling, Perth, ♦Dunfermline, Kinghorn, and
St. Andrews, and called upon all ranks to sign the rolls of homages
as the vassals of their illustrious Lord Superior. All those who were
refractory, were coerced by imprisonment and other punishments;¹ and
Edward was silently rejoicing over the great victory which he had so
easily gained.
♦ “Dumfermline” replaced with “Dunfermline”
¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 250, 252; Hailes’ _Annals_,
Volume I., pages 226‒229.
In 1291 eleven meetings were held, the first one in May and the last
in August; and the places of meeting and all the proceedings were
stated in the records with the greatest minuteness, so that everything
connected with the cause, and especially the supreme position and the
functions of the Lord Superior, should be placed beyond question. At
the meeting held on the 3rd of August, Edward intimated that Bruce and
Baliol should each select forty men as commissioners, while he should
choose twenty-four or more if he thought fit; and these commissioners
were directed to meet in a body and consider the claims of the
candidates for the Crown, and report to the king. At this meeting
twelve candidates for the Crown appeared and entered their claims; and
Edward requested the commissioners to consider them all attentively,
and render their report to the next meeting, to be held on the 2nd of
June, 1292.¹
¹ Palgrave’s _Documents_.
This long adjournment was a fine politic move. As its apparent object
was to give the commissioners ample time to consider the claims of the
candidates in relation to the cause, while it answered the important
purpose of accustoming the Scotch nobles and clergy to look to Edward
as their great Lord Paramount. For similar reasons Edward welcomed all
grades of claimants, and consequently several of those who came forward
and claimed the Crown were illegitimate descendants of the kings of
Scotland. But seeing that every claimant had a body of feudal followers,
and as the first step of each claimant was to recognise Edward as his
Lord Superior, and render homage to him as such, every new claimant
thus strengthened Edward’s position.
When the commissioners re-assembled on the 2nd of June, 1292, a new
claim was entered by Eric, King of Norway, the father of the deceased
Maid of Norway; but his claim was not pressed, and judgment passed
against him by default. Indeed, it was then well known that the real
struggle was virtually between Bruce and Baliol, with a possible chance
for Hastings. The proceedings of this meeting assumed the form of an
admirable piece of acting planned by Edward I., and well performed by
the Scotch commissioners. The king first asked the Scotch commissioners
to inform the Court by what laws and customs judgment should be
given. They answered that, owing to difference of opinion among
themselves, and the importance of the cause, they were unable to come
to a conclusion without deliberation, and therefore they sought the
opinion of the English commissioners, but they also declined to commit
themselves till enlightened by an English parliament. Edward then
adjourned the meeting to the 15th of October, 1292, and declared that
meanwhile he would consult the learned all over the world.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 777; Hailes’ _Annals_, Volume I.,
page 235.
The assembly which met at Berwick on the 15th of October settled some
preliminary points, one of which was that the succession to the Crown
of Scotland ought to be decided in the same manner as the succession
to earldoms, baronies, and other indivisible inheritances. Bruce and
Baliol were then heard in turn at great length in support of their
claims. Bruce determinedly insisted that his right to the Crown had
been recognised in the reigns of Alexander II. and Alexander III., and
urged that his claim was supported by the custom of succession to the
Crown of Scotland. Baliol’s claim was well and adroitly argued, and a
touching reference made to the supremacy of the Lord Paramount’s court.
After the two claimants were heard, Edward requested his council and
the commissioners to answer this question:――“By the laws and customs
of both kingdoms, ought the issue of an elder sister, but more remote
by one degree, to exclude the issue of the younger sister, although
one degree nearer.” The council answered in the affirmative, which was
in favour of Baliol’s claim. Other meetings were held before the final
decision was given, and at one held on the 6th of November, Edward
announced that Bruce was out of the contest as a claimant against
Baliol. John Hastings immediately advanced his claim for one-third of
the kingdom, on the reasonable ground that it was divisible like any
other feudal fief. Bruce then presented a second claim for a third of
the kingdom of Scotland. Hastings and Bruce in turn pleaded against
Baliol that the kingdom ought to be divided into three parts, the same
as other feudal fiefs and baronies, and on this ground they argued
their claims to an equal division of the kingdom amongst them at
great length: and according to feudalism they were right. But the most
peculiar feature of the proceedings was the complete elimination of any
reference to the people of Scotland. It seems never to have occurred
to the grasping claimants that there lived amongst the valleys and
mountains of Scotland a strong-willed race, habituated to independence
and freedom, whose spirit must be broken ere even the decision of the
great Lord Superior could be of much avail.¹
¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 309‒356.
On the 17th of November 1292, in the castle of Berwick, and in the
presence of a large assemblage, Edward delivered judgment in favour of
Baliol. The vassal King then rendered homage to his Lord Superior, and
orders were issued to invest him in his feudal fief. These points and
formalities were performed and recorded with great care and minuteness,
that the process and the rights of the Superior of the fief might be
placed beyond question. Baliol then proceeded to Scone to be crowned,
with a warrant from his Lord Superior authorising the ceremony, which
was accordingly performed on the 30th of November. Shortly after he
passed into England, and there concluded the last act of the drama by
rendering homage to Edward I. as the invested vassal King of Scotland.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 357, 358; also _Ragman Rolls_.
When Baliol returned to his kingdom he found himself among a people
little disposed to submit to him or his Lord Paramount. If at any
moment he had fancied himself fortunate in attaining to the throne
of Scotland, he was speedily and rudely disabused. It does not appear
that he was gifted with much talent, while he was thwarted at every
turn as an unwelcome master. Indeed, it was rumoured that the poor man
was in terror of his life, as he was now far away from his great lord
and benefactor; yet he seems to have begun his reign with proceedings
intended to benefit the kingdom. He passed an Act in February 1293,
which divided the district of Argyle for administrative purposes,
and re-arranged the sheriffdoms thus:――The sheriffdom of Skye was to
include the western portion of Ross (then north Argyle), the lands
of Glenelg, the lands of Garmoran, and the isles of Eig and Rum. The
sheriffship of Lorne was to include the lands of Ardnamurchan and
Morven, the lands of the Lord of Lorne, and other lands; the sheriffdom
of Cantyre was to include the lands of Cantyre and the island of Bute.¹
But Baliol’s prospects of a successful reign were soon blasted.
¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, page 371; _Acts of the Parliaments
of Scotland_, Volume I., page 91.
The Lord Superior shortly had an opportunity of exhibiting his power,
and he placed the vassal King in a most humiliating position. It had
become known that the king’s courts were no longer supreme, as there
was a higher authority which might reverse their decisions. A citizen
of Berwick appealed to the Court of Edward I. against a judgment of
the late administrators of Scotland; it was simply a dispute about
money, and Baliol remonstrated and maintained that the appeal should
not be entertained. But Edward returned a crushing reply to his vassal,
and, in effect, told Baliol that he had determined to exercise direct
dominion over the kingdom of Scotland whenever and wherever he thought
fit. Edward was prepared to try all appeals from Scotland, and it was
made a condition that Baliol should appear in person before the English
courts. Macduff appealed to Edward against a judgment of the Scotch
Parliament, touching lands of the Earl of Fife, and Baliol was summoned
to appear and answer the statements of Macduff. The appeal came before
the English Parliament on the 15th of October, 1293, and Baliol was
then asked what defence he had to offer; but he declined to answer.
“What means this,” said Edward I. “You are my vassal, you have done
homage to me, you are here in consequence of my summons.” Still Baliol
declined to make any answer to the appeal; so the Parliament declared
that he was a contumacious offender, who had not shown due respect to
this august assembly. Accordingly it was proposed to deprive him of the
means of wrong-doing by taking three of the chief castles of Scotland
into the hands of the Lord Superior, until his vassal, King John,
should render proper satisfaction.¹ The hapless king crouched and
returned to Scotland, where other stirring events soon followed.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I. pages 377, 389;
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I. page 89.
In 1294 a quarrel arose between the King of France and Edward I.,
touching their feudal relations. Philip IV. of France was then
exerting all his energy to extend and consolidate his kingdom, and the
occurrence of an opportunity to insult his feudal vassal, the King of
England, was simply the first step towards the annexation of Edward’s
possessions on the opposite side of the Channel to the Crown of France.
Edward knew this very well, and summoned his army and prepared for
war to the knife.¹ He also summoned his own vassal, King John, and the
Scotch nobles, to assist him in the French war; but instead of obeying
and joining his army, they held a Parliament at Scone. They dismissed
all the Englishmen from the court, and appointed a committee of twelve
members, consisting of four bishops, four earls, and four barons, by
whose counsel the King was to conduct the government.
¹ Crowe’s _History of France_, Volume I., pages 306‒308.
The kingdom was rapidly drifting into a perilous position. Negotiations
were opened with France, and in October 1295, a treaty between France
and Scotland was concluded. A clause of the treaty provided for the
marriage of Baliol’s son to a niece of Philip IV., and the King of
France engaged to assist Scotland in the event of an English invasion
by sending a French force or by making a diversion; while the Scotch
King undertook to send an army across the border whenever England
was at war with France. This was the commencement of a line of policy
which had a considerable influence on Scotland for the three succeeding
centuries.
The Scotch nobles by their disobedience and overt acts had broken their
allegiance to their Lord Superior; and that clause of the new treaty
touching the invasion of England was quickly put into operation. They
mustered an army, which, under the command of Comyn, Earl of Buchan,
invaded Cumberland in March 1296, and wasted the country; and shortly
after they made another raid into Northumberland.¹ These raids in
the circumstances of the kingdom were extremely unwise, as the Scots
were thus placed in the position of aggressors. To wantonly provoke a
contest with England, which under any circumstances must have been an
unequal one, but specially so as the nation then stood, with a vassal
king and a divided and disorganised nobility, was most deplorable
policy. At the outset many of the feudal leaders of the people deserted,
and thus left the people in a helpless and hopeless position; while
Edward I. had not only a numerical superiority of fighting men, but
also acted with great energy and decision.
¹ _The Chronicles of the Priory of Hexham_ contains an account
of these Scotch raids, accompanied with the usual
lamentation about the cruelty of the Scots.
In the spring of 1296, Edward I. marched northward with a large and
well-equipped army; but he was anxious still further to increase
its ranks, and on the 11th of April he issued a writ inviting all
grades of men to join his army against Scotland. Criminals of every
♦description, homicides, murderers, and robbers, all were requested
to place themselves under his banner. He had determined to pounce upon
Berwick, then the richest town in Scotland. The citizens naturally
resisted his attack, but they were soon overpowered, and without
distinction of age or sex were put to the sword, eight thousand of the
inhabitants being ruthlessly massacred. The town was utterly ruined.
A party of thirty Flemings posted themselves in their factory, a
strong building which the resident merchants of that nation were under
obligation by their charter to defend against the English: and faithful
to their contract these heroic men held out till evening against the
English army, when their assailants, enraged by the determined defence,
set the building on fire, and every one of its brave defenders perished
amid the flames.¹
♦ “descripcription” replaced with “description”
¹ Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, pages 373, 374; Hailes’ _Annals_,
Volume I., page 258, _et seq._
Edward formed a ditch, and threw up defensive works round Berwick.
On the 5th of April he received from the Abbot of Arbroath Baliol’s
renunciation of his allegiance to his Lord Superior. This document
enumerated the outrages and robberies inflicted on the subjects of
Scotland on sea and land, and concluded with a declaration that Baliol
had resolved to fight against Edward I. in defence of his kingdom.
But John Baliol had little ability or energy, and he was placed in
trying circumstances. Accordingly no effective resistance against the
invader was offered at any point. From Berwick Edward proceeded towards
Dunbar, the key of the eastern marches. A Scotch force had mustered
to defend it, but on the 26th of April they were attacked, dispersed,
and defeated, and many of them slain or taken prisoners. The castle of
Dunbar then fell into the hands of the English, and the Earls of Athole,
Monteith, and Ross, and a number of barons, submitted to Edward, and
all the prisoners of rank were conveyed to England and imprisoned.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 26, 27;
Rishanger’s _Chronicles_, page 375.
Edward I. having destroyed Berwick, scattered the Scottish army, and
taken the castle of Dunbar, now proceeded rapidly with his work. The
castles of Roxburgh, Jedburgh, and others on the line of his march
were surrendered to him. He reached Edinburgh on the 6th of June, and
attacked the castle with all the appliances at his command, pelting
it day and night for a week; after this it capitulated. He continued
his triumphal progress to Linlithgow and onward to Stirling, crossed
the Forth unopposed, and, proceeding by Perth, passed the Tay and
entered Forfarshire. Baliol had fled northward before the advance
of the conquering hero, and at the castle of Brechin, on the 10th of
July, 1296, the vassal king came to his lord, like a criminal suing
for mercy, and submitted to Edward’s pleasure. Then the documents
considered necessary to degrade and dispossess him were drawn up and
signed, and Baliol and his son were sent into England as prisoners.
Edward continued his progress advancing northward by Aberdeen and Banff,
till he reached Elgin on the 26th of July; thence he returned by a
higher route, calling at Rothes, Kildrummy Castle, and on to Brechin.
Throughout this progress Edward and his army were actively employed in
taking the personal oaths of allegiance from all classes of the people,
the barons, knights, and churchmen of all grades, being specially
called upon to record their allegiance and render homage to the Lord
Paramount. There was then no evasion of this exaction, and all those
who wished to escape imprisonment or death had no alternative but to
render their allegiance to Edward I.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 27,
59‒61; _Ragman Rolls_.
When returning south Edward took away the Coronation Stone――the
venerated Stone of Destiny――from Scone as he was extremely anxious to
efface every vestige of the national and patriotic feeling of the Scots.
He then proceeded through Fife, along the northern banks of the Forth,
and reached Berwick on the 22nd of August. A few days later he held
a council at Berwick, in which a number of Scotch nobles and clergy
submitted to him, and their estates were restored to them. He then
made arrangements for the government of the kingdom, and appointed
John Warrene, Earl of Surrey, guardian of Scotland, Hugh Cressingham,
treasurer, and William Ormesby, justiciary. The chief castles of
the kingdom were committed to the custody of English captains and
garrisoned by English troops. Having thus settled everything, Edward
proceeded home with the Stone of Destiny as a memorial of his conquest
of Scotland, and a suitable offering to Edward the Confessor.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 30, 31; _Rotuli Scotiæ_, Volume I., pages
29‒35.
The seemingly complete subjection and depression of the Scots under the
heel of the invader was the result of easily understood circumstances,
which have already been indicated. Edward I. obtained a footing in
the kingdom through the disputed succession, and thereby gained a
commanding influence over the chief Scotch nobles. Thus it occurred
that many of those nobles who should have come determinedly to the
front at this national crisis, as the natural leaders of the people,
had joined the enemy, and left the people helpless and forlorn. But the
native race of Scotland keenly felt their position, and the demeanour
of the English soldiers aroused their ire. Hatred sprung up between
them, and bitter strife reigned in the land. Edward I. instructed his
chief officials to make the utmost efforts to extinguish the rising
spirit of rebellion, and not to be sparing in the distribution of the
King’s favours and money. But Edward had misunderstood the character of
those men whose spirit he wished to crush or corrupt; for his treasurer,
Cressingham, replied to the King thus:――“Sir, you have told me not
to be sparing of your favours. Sir, I neither am nor shall be, if God
pleases, for few have asked for them, in consequence of the times,
which have been troublesome.”¹ It appears that Edward’s favours and
money would not answer the conditions which had arisen amongst the
Scots.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
170‒172, 227.
At this perilous moment a hero arose to fight the battle of freedom
and national independence. Wallace was the son of a small landed
proprietor, one of those who had never sworn allegiance to Edward I.
In his early years he was under the care of his uncle, an ecclesiastic
in Stirlingshire, from whom he received the rudiments of a classical
training, afterwards attending a school in Dundee for two years. He was
gifted with rare mental faculties; tall in stature, with an athletic
frame, and a commanding presence; his personal characteristics and
sterling moral qualities won respect; while he was a military genius
of a high order, and a man of remarkable political sagacity. He soon
kindled in the heart of the nation an unquenchable spirit of resistance
to oppression.
Wallace began his public career by attacking outlying parties of the
English, and his followers increased with his success. Sir William
Douglas, who had lands in Northumberland as well as in Scotland, was
the first man of note to ally himself with the patriot. At length
Wallace resolved to assail the English Justiciary, Ormesby, in his
court at Scone. The Justiciary escaped with his life, but a rich booty,
and some prisoners fell into Wallace’s hands. Wallace and Douglas
continued their attacks on the invaders; and they were soon joined by
others, amongst whom were Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, the Stewart of
Scotland, and Robert Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow: Robert Bruce, Earl of
Carrick, grandson of the claimant of the crown, after some hesitation,
joined the national party. Edward I. soon made Douglas feel his
displeasure, for on the 12th of June, 1297, he ordered that the lands
and goods in Northumberland belonging to Sir William Douglas should be
seized and sold for the use of the king.¹ After Edward’s government in
the centre of Scotland had been thrown into confusion, Wallace and Sir
Andrew Moray of Bothwell crossed the Tay for the purpose of recruiting
and organising an army in the north-eastern and northern counties.
¹ “The lands and tenements, the goods and chattels, in the
county of Northumberland, belonging to Sir William Douglas,
should be taken into our hands; if there be any corn or
cattle, or any other stock whatever, besides the growing
crop, to sell it without delay, and to enhance the price
thereof to our use as much as possible.” _Historical
Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 176, 177.
When Edward I. was told of the rising in Scotland he could not believe
it, because so many of the nobles were with himself or in prison; he
never even imagined that the Scots might attempt to act without nobles,
and this lack of foresight to estimate the spirit of resistance among
the people proved to be the missing link in Edward’s scheme of conquest
from its inception to its termination. He sent Beck, the Bishop of
Durham, into Scotland to extinguish the rising, but Beck soon had to
beat a retreat, and narrowly escaped with his life. When Beck returned
Edward commanded the whole military force north of the Trent to muster
and crush the rebellion. An army of forty thousand foot and three
hundred cavalry entered Scotland under Henry Percy, and marched through
Annandale and on to Irvine, where Robert Bruce and other nobles were
lying in arms. As usual, these nobles were wavering and undecided,
and sought to parley with the enemy, at last they concluded a treaty
with the English authorities, by which they preserved their estates,
promised to give hostages for their future conduct, and then dispersed,
without striking a single blow. The treaty was signed at Irvine on
the 9th of July, 1297, and those who agreed to it were Robert Bruce,
Earl of Carrick; James, the Stewart of Scotland; his brother, John;
Alexander Lindsay, Sir William Douglas, and the Bishop of Glasgow. A
copy of it was sent to Wallace and Andrew Moray but they disregarded
it.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
192‒194; Palgrave’s _Documents_, page 197.
Wallace was then recruiting and instructing men in the north-eastern
counties beyond the Tay, and Andrew Moray of Bothwell was intently
engaged in similar work farther north and in Strathspey. On the 17th of
July 1297, Moray and his recruits, in a position protected by a bog and
a wood in the valley of the Spey, repulsed the attacks and the utmost
efforts of a body of Edward’s cavalry and soldiers to dislodge them.
Wallace and Moray worked with great energy in conjunction with each
other and soon organised an efficient army. Wallace then attacked the
castles, and many of them shortly fell into his hands. The castles of
Aberdeen, Forfar, Brechin, and Montrose, were successively captured.¹
He had just begun the siege of the castle of Dundee when tidings came
that the English army was marching on Stirling. Wallace at once saw his
opportunity, ordered the citizens of Dundee to continue the siege, and
hurried off with his army to guard the passage of the Forth.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
211‒213.
Wallace posted his men on the rising ground which commanded the Bridge
of Stirling. The English army, fifty thousand strong, under the command
of John de ♦Warrene, Earl of Surrey, lay on the opposite side of the
river. When the English general observed the position of his enemy he
tried to temporise, and sent forward messengers of peace; but Wallace
knew well the advantages of his position, and told the English envoys
that he had resolved on battle,――“to set his country free.” On the 11th
of September the enemy began to pass over the narrow bridge. When one
half of the army had crossed it, Wallace, by a preconcerted movement,
attacked the English in the rear, and intercepted between them and the
bridge. When this was executed, the main body of the Scots instantly
rushed down and assailed the forming lines of the English, throwing
them into utter confusion; a panic seized the whole army, and a
headlong rout ensued. Many were drowned in the river, and many slain
in the flight. Surrey with the remnant of his army found shelter in the
castle of Berwick where he remained for some months.¹
♦ “Warrence” replaced with “Warrene”
¹ _Scotland in 1298_, by H. Gough, Introduction, page 1,
_et seq._, 1888.
This battle had the effect of clearing the country of the enemy,
and all the castles were recovered. The Battle of Stirling in other
respects was an exceedingly important event, as it raised the spirit of
the people and gave them confidence in themselves, at the most perilous
and trying crisis which had ever occurred in the history of the kingdom;
and its result continued to have an inspiriting influence upon the mind
and feeling of the nation throughout all the subsequent stages of the
struggle for national independence and liberty. Indeed, at Stirling
Bridge, Wallace clearly read a significant lesson to the English as
well as to the Scots; but unhappily the former were unwilling to learn
it or even to recognise its meaning.
Wallace was anxious to promote peaceful ♦industry, as the following
circumstance shows: A document dated 11th of October 1297, was
despatched to Lubeck and Hamburg, in the names of Andrew Moray and
William Wallace, generals of the army of the kingdom and community
of Scotland, thanking the friends of the country for their services,
which the state of the kingdom had prevented the due acknowledgment,
and informed them that commerce with the ports of Scotland would now
be restored: “As the kingdom of Scotland, thanks be to God, has been
delivered by battle from the power of the English.”¹
♦ “indnstry” replaced with “industry”
¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part I.; _Documents illustrative of
Wallace_.
Shortly after the battle, Wallace retook the town of Berwick, but
not the castle; and about the middle of October he advanced into
Northumberland and plundered the country. The Scotch army remained
in the north of England from the 18th of October to the 11th
of November; and the English chroniclers described in a piteous
strain the terror and misery which the Scots had caused amongst the
inhabitants. As plunder was the object of the raid, no doubt the people
of Northumberland and Cumberland had suffered severely. Wallace granted
a protection in name of King John to the prior and convent of Hexham,
which was to continue in force for three years; forbidding the Scots
to injure any of the members of the convent under severe penalties.
After the Scots retired, Lord Clifford led a raid into Scotland,
and plundered Annandale, burned a hundred cottages, captured a few
prisoners, and slew three hundred and eight of the Scots.¹
¹ _Chronicles and Annals of Hexham_, Preface, Volume I.,
pages 80‒85. “King Edward having gone to Flanders, and
in his absence, the rebellious Scots under the command
of the ribald William Wallace, ravaged Northumberland and
Westmoorland, ♦sparing neither age nor sex.” Hemingford’s
_Chronicles_, Volume II., pages 141‒146.
♦ “spearing” replaced with “sparing”
In the end of the year 1297 Wallace was chosen Guardian of the kingdom
of Scotland and leader of its armies, in the name of King John, and
with consent of the community. He adopted measures calculated to
secure order, to promote peaceful industry, and the commerce of the
kingdom; he also made the utmost efforts to improve the organisation
and discipline of the army. The body of the people acquiesced in his
government, and he received considerable support from the clergy:
still the condition of the kingdom was such that no individual exertion
or sagacity could have placed it in a position to meet the recurrent
exigences of the time. For the feudal organisation then prevailed in
Scotland, and it could not be changed in a day or a year; while, with
the King banished, some of the chief nobles lurking out of the way,
others in prison, and some of them actually opposing the Guardian,
the feudal system of defence itself could not be effectively worked.
Thus considering the state of the nation, and the circumstances above
indicated, it is surprising that Wallace achieved so much under such
conditions.
Since the battle of Stirling Bridge, Edward I. had been making
preparation for a great invasion of Scotland to crush the rising
under Wallace. On his return from the Continent in March 1298, his
troops, drawn from all parts of England and Wales, were mustered and
concentrated as they advanced towards the borders; and when Edward I.
reached Roxburgh on the 3rd of July, his army numbered 88,000 men, of
which 8000 were cavalry. He advanced towards the Forth and proceeded
by Lauder, but his progress was slow, as provisions were scarce and
the position of his army critical. Some of his ships, however, having
arrived in the Forth, he halted at Kirk-liston, and rested his troops
for a week. Wallace with his small army could not think of facing
Edward’s vast host in the open field: his tactics were to protract
the issue and render the advance of the enemy difficult; so he drove
off everything which could be removed, and left the country behind
him waste, in this way hoping to starve out the enemy. For a time he
seemed likely to succeed; as we have seen above, the English army was
suffering severely. At last, through treachery, Wallace was forced
to give battle near Falkirk. As Edward received intelligence of the
position of the Scots while his army was lying at Kirk-liston, he
immediately marched rapidly ♦forward by Linlithgow, and on the morning
of the 22nd of July he descried the Scots. The enemy was too near for
retreat, as his eight thousand cavalry would have pursued and cut off
the Scots, so that Wallace had no alternative but fight.
♦ “foward” replaced with “forward”
Wallace’s whole force was under thirty thousand men, not a third part
of the number of the enemy; but he drew up his men in a form admirably
fitted to resist cavalry charges. He formed his infantry into four
solid circular bodies with their weapons pointing outward and crossing
each other. His small company of archers, under the command of Sir John
Stewart, were posted in the spaces between the circular divisions, and
his one thousand cavalry were placed behind the circular bodies. After
thus disposing his troops, Wallace was reported to have said to them:
“I have brought you to the ring, do the best you can.” The English
had one hundred and eleven banners at the battle, and their army was
marshalled in four divisions. The first division was commanded by
the Earl of Lincoln, assisted by the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk;
the second division was led by the famous Beck, Bishop of Durham; the
third division was commanded by the King in person; and the fourth by
the Earl of Surrey. The Earl of March, Patrick of Dunbar, fought in
the second division of the English army; and it was March and Angus
who informed Edward of the position of the Scots before the march to
Falkirk. The Earls of Lincoln and Hereford first advanced to the attack,
Bishop Beck following. They furiously charged the Scots; but the
compact circles of the spearmen repulsed the onset of the enemy; and
the cavalry charges were many times repeated but always repelled. Sir
John Stewart, who led the Scottish archers, was thrown from his horse
and slain along with many of his men around him. The Scottish cavalry
did not come into action; still the spearmen held their ground and
presented an unbroken front to the enemy. Edward then suspended the
cavalry charges, and ordered his slingers and bowmen to the front;
and this multitude of men poured showers of stones and arrows upon
the circles of the Scottish spearmen, which at length disorganised
them. Then the cavalry charges of the enemy were recommenced, and
the spearmen, being assailed on every side, were ultimately defeated.
About ten thousand of the Scots fell on the field of Falkirk. Wallace
retreated with the remnant of his army through the wood in the
neighbourhood. Among the slain on the Scottish side, were Sir John
Stewart of Bonkill, a younger son of the seventh High Stewart of
Scotland, Sir John Graham of Dundaff, and Macduff, a grand-uncle of
the Earl of Fife.¹
¹ _Scotland in 1298_, Gough, page 131, _et seq._, and
Introduction, pages 11, 12; Hemingford’s _Chronicles_,
Volume II., pages 176‒181.
Wallace continued his retreat by Stirling, thence the English slowly
followed; and on the fourth day after the battle, they arrived and
found the town deserted. Edward’s victory was fruitless, as he was
compelled to retire with his starving host for lack of provisions; and
after visiting at Ayr, he proceeded southward to Carlisle. Immediately
after the battle, Edward I. granted presentations to upwards of thirty
benefices in Scotland, which included bishoprics and churches in the
counties of Lanark, Selkirk, Peebles, Haddington, Roxburgh, Fife,
Perth, Kincardine and Aberdeen.¹ He also gave the island of Arran
to Thomas Bisset, and promised his own barons extensive lands out of
the territories of the Scottish nobles. After making these and other
arrangements calculated to secure his hold on Scotland, Edward returned
to London in the beginning of December.
¹ _Scotland in 1298_, Gough, pages 239‒246. This volume
contains a vast quantity of interesting information, much of
which is specially valuable to the genealogist.
Shortly after the battle of Falkirk Wallace resigned the Guardianship
of Scotland. After he had rendered Stirling and Perth useless to the
enemy, he returned with a body of his followers to the Torwood, and
thence followed on Edward’s track. John Comyn of Badenoch and John
de Soulis were elected Guardians, associated with William Lamberton,
the Bishop of St. Andrews, who was a personal friend and supporter of
Wallace, and Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick. Lamberton intimated to the
King of France that Wallace’s protection at his court was requisite
to the continuance of the alliance between the two kingdoms. Wallace
proceeded to France on the service of his country, and endeavoured
in every way to free the kingdom from the yoke of the invader and
oppressor. It appears that he had intended to proceed to Rome to plead
the cause of Scotland, as the following letter shows:――“Philip by
the grace of God King of the French, to my loved and faithful agents,
appointed to the Roman Court, greeting. We command you to request the
Supreme Pontiff to hold our loved William Wallace of Scotland, Knight,
recommended to his favour in those things which he has to transact with
him;” dated on the 1st November 1298.¹ There is no direct evidence that
Wallace actually went to Rome, but circumstantial evidence render it
very probable that he had communications with the Pope touching the
affairs and the position of Scotland.
¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part I.
Although Edward I. had made peace with France, he was somewhat
embarrassed by the demands of his barons touching the great charter
and the rights which they embraced every opportunity to claim; still
he continued his attacks upon Scotland. In 1300 he invaded the country;
but Wallace, who had returned from France, anticipated him, and marched
from the Torwood into the southern counties, seized the castle of
Tibbers, and other castles in Nithsdale. Edward took several castles
in Dumfriesshire, and then besieged Caerlaverock castle, which, after
a heroic defence against the whole English army, at last surrendered.
He advanced into Galloway, but his foraging parties were often attacked
and cut off by the Scots. After a campaign of five months, Edward
returned to England without achieving any important result.
It was during this campaign that Edward I. was obliged to listen to
one of the most severe and logical attacks which had as yet been made
upon him, touching his claims of feudal superiority over the kingdom
of Scotland. In the castle of Caerlaverock, about the end of August,
the Archbishop of Canterbury acting as the Pope’s legate, placed a Bull
from Boniface VIII. in the hands of Edward I., which was read in the
presence of his assembled barons and knights. This remarkable document
affirmed that Scotland owed allegiance to no one, save the Holy See.
Boniface then charged Edward I. with violating all the liberties and
the rights of Scotland, and proceeded to state――“that neither he nor
any of his predecessors held over the kingdom any superiority; since,
when in the wars between your father Henry and Simon de Montfort,
he requested the assistance of Alexander III., King of Scotland,
acknowledged by letters patent that he received such assistance, not
as due to him, but as a special favour. Moreover, when you yourself
invited King Alexander to attend your coronation, you made the request
as a matter of favour and not of right. When the King of Scotland
rendered homage to you for his lands in Tynedale and Penrith, he
publicly protested it was rendered not for his kingdom but for these
lands only, since, as King of Scotland, he was independent. Yea,
further, when Alexander III. died, leaving an heiress to his Crown,
a grand-daughter in her minority, the wardship of this infant was not
given to you, which it would have been if you had been Lord Superior,
but was given to certain nobles of Scotland elected for the office.”
Touching the negotiations for the proposed marriage between the Prince
of Wales and the Maid of Norway, the Pope reminded Edward I. that he
had then acknowledged the independence of Scotland; and it was singular
that he submitted to negotiate if he had a right to command. Regarding
the changes lately made on the rights and the liberties of Scotland,
with the consent of a divided nobility, or the person whom Edward had
placed in charge of the kingdom, these ought not to continue, as all
had been extorted by force and intimidation. The Pope exhorted Edward,
in the name of God, to at once liberate the bishops and the clergy
whom he had imprisoned, and to remove all the officers and officials
whom he had thrust upon the Scottish nation. Finally, Boniface said,
“if Edward imagined that he had any pretensions to the whole or any
part of Scotland, let him send his proctors to me, and I will determine
according to justice.” On the conclusion of the reading of the Pope’s
letter, Edward started to his feet and exclaimed:――“I will not be
silent or at rest, either for Mount Zion or Jerusalem, but, as long as
there is breath in my nostrils, I will defend what all the world knows
to be my right.”¹ The result, however, was that Edward soon disbanded
his army, and summoned a parliament to meet in February 1301, which,
having met, framed an answer to the Pope’s letter. In October 1300, he
granted a truce to the Scots to continue till the middle of May 1301.
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I.; _Walsingham_; _Book of Wallace_, Rogers,
Volume II., pages 182‒187.
The truce was not strictly observed by either side. Edward made
arrangements to secure his hold in every place where he had any footing,
strengthened the garrisons of the castles which he held throughout the
kingdom, and instructed the English residents at Perth, Ayr, Dundee,
and Banff, to remain in these places till the termination of the truce.
He released the Bishop of Glasgow from imprisonment only after he had
renewed his allegiance. Edward I. seems to have had great faith in
oaths and homages, but he forgot that there might be circumstances in
which they were not binding.
In the summer of 1301 Edward advanced into Scotland with a great army,
but the Scots managed to avoid a battle, so that the campaign was
ineffective. He did not cross the Forth, and his army suffered severely
from the scarcity of provisions and forage. In October he concentrated
his troops at Linlithgow and Falkirk, collected stores there, and fixed
his head-quarters for the winter at Linlithgow, where he erected a
castle. He expected that his presence would overcome the Scots. Owing
to the severe winter he lost a large number of his war-horses, and he
discovered that his campaign was attended with enormous expenditure.
On the 26th of January, 1302, on the suggestion of France, Edward
promised to grant a truce to the Scots, which was to continue till
the 30th of the ensuing November; and in the beginning of February he
left Linlithgow and marched southward. Before he departed he bound Sir
Alexander Baliol to hold Selkirk forest against the Scots, and exacted
pledges from the captains of the castles of Linlithgow, Ayr, Edinburgh,
Jedburgh, Roxburgh, and Berwick, that they would continue to defend
these castles till the ensuing summer. Edward vehemently objected to
the Scots being described as the “allies” of France, and on the 30th
of April he protested against the truce.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I.; _Book of Wallace_, Rogers, Volume II.,
pages 194‒199.
Edward exerted his ingenuity to the utmost to detach the King of France
from giving any encouragement to the Scots, and he completely succeeded.
Further he covertly arranged with the King of France to name those
Scotsmen whose absence from the kingdom Edward considered to be most
convenient for the success of his scheme of conquest, and accordingly
Philip’s ambassadors named Bishop Lamberton of St. Andrews, the Bishop
of Dunkeld, the Steward of Scotland, Sir John Soulis, John Comyn, Earl
of Buchan, Sir Ingram Umfraville, and Sir William Baliol. But ere the
Scotch ambassadors arrived, a truce was arranged between England and
France, in which all reference to the Scots was excluded; and in the
final treaty of peace, ratified at Paris in May 1303, no reference
to the Scots occurred. Pope Boniface VIII. also deserted the cause
of Scotland; and in August 1302, he reprimanded Bishop Wishart for
opposing the English rule, and commanded him to desist from it. At the
same time the Pope commanded the other Scotch bishops to make peace
with Edward.¹ Having thus far succeeded, as he imagined, in debarring
the Scots from all hope of external aid in any quarter, Edward
proceeded to prepare for the complete conquest of the kingdom.
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 972; Volume II., page 929.
The Scots held Stirling castle and the country north of the Forth, and
Edward I. as yet had only a precarious hold on the southern division of
the kingdom. In February 1303, an English army was mustered at Berwick,
numbering twenty thousand men, which, under the command of Sir John
Segrave, advanced into Scotland. Segrave marched his army northward
in three divisions, not far apart from each other, in order to obtain
quartering for his men and forage for the horses. John Comyn, Wallace,
and Sir Simon Fraser, having learned the position of the enemy, on the
morning of the 24th February, 1303, rapidly advanced from Biggar to
Roslin with eight thousand men on foot, and surprised the English army.
A severe contest ensued, but the three divisions of the English were
defeated in detail, and sixteen knights and thirty esquires were taken
prisoners.
But Edward I. was then free from embarrassment abroad and at home, and
he made ample preparations for the final conquest of Scotland. Through
craft, in which he was abetted by the King of France, the Scotch
envoys were induced to remain at the French court by the most base and
false professions imaginable. On the 25th of May, 1303, these deluded
Scotsmen at the French court communicated with Sir John Comyn, the
guardian, in the following words:――“Be not alarmed that the Scots are
not mentioned in the treaty. The King of France will immediately send
ambassadors to divert Edward from war, and to procure a truce for us
until the two kings can have a personal conference in France. At that
conference a peace will be concluded beneficial to our nation: of this
the King of France has himself given us the most positive assurance....
Marvel not that none of us return home at present: we would all have
willingly returned, but the King of France will have us to remain till
we bring home intelligence of the result of this business; wherefore,
for the Lord’s sake, despair not: but if ever you acted with resolution,
do so now.... The French ambassadors will be empowered to treat of
peace, as well as to negotiate a truce.”¹ The men thus detained at
the French court were John Soulis, one of the guardians, the Steward
of Scotland, the Earl of Buchan, and Ingram de Umfraville; thus, with
these men absent, and the defection of the Earl of Carrick, there were
few persons of ability and rank left in Scotland to offer resistance to
the crafty and ruthless invader.
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 955.
In the middle of May 1303, Edward I. commenced his march, having
arranged his army in two divisions, one under himself and the other
under the Prince of Wales. Edward advanced by Morpeth and reached
Roxburgh on the 21st of May, where he was joined by the followers
of the Earl of Carrick. The Prince of Wales entered Scotland by the
western marches, but his advance was checked at several points by
Wallace; he therefore deviated from his intended route and marched
through Roxburghshire, advancing northward in the rear of his father.
Edward reached Edinburgh on the 4th of June, marched by Linlithgow and
thence to Stirling, crossed the Forth, and on the 10th of June entered
Perth. He stayed in Perth till the middle of July, then proceeded to
Dundee, and thence to Montrose. At this stage he summoned Sir Thomas
Maule to surrender the castle of Brechin, but Sir Thomas declined to
surrender it. Edward marched from Montrose to Brechin with his war
engines, and besieged the castle. Sir Thomas made a heroic defence;
but at last he was fatally wounded and expired, and the garrison then
surrendered, but not till five waggon-loads of lead had been thrown
into the castle.
At Brechin Edward was joined by the Prince of Wales, and, resuming his
progress northward, he marched by the castle of Kincardine and arrived
at Aberdeen on the 24th of August; thence he marched through Buchan
and reached Banff on the 4th of September, whence marching northward,
he crossed the Spey and advanced through Moray, reaching Kinross on
the 20th of September. Edward advanced into Badenoch and occupied the
castle of Lochindorb, one of the strongholds of the Comyns; and all
the men of note in the locality were compelled to render homage to
him. He returned by Kinross, and thence to the castle of Kildrummy.
He next marched southward by Brechin, and fixed his headquarters at
♦Dunfermline, where he remained through the winter of 1304.¹
♦ “Dumfermline” replaced with “Dunfermline”
¹ _Fœdera_; Hemingford’s _Chronicles_; _Book of Wallace_,
Rogers, Volume II., pages 206‒208.
It then seemed that all was lost, although the spirit of the people
had enabled them to struggle against fearful odds and to endure extreme
privation; still human endurance has its limits, and the stage of hope
appeared to be passed. Craft, force, and cruelty, had done their work;
but it had yet to be seen whether these would ultimately triumph.
Negotiations with Comyn, the guardian, were begun in the latter part
of December 1303, for his submission to Edward I. These negotiations
were long and tedious, and while they were proceeding Comyn remained
in his camp at Strathord, in Forfarshire. The conditions as first laid
down by Edward as the basis for treating of the submission of Comyn and
his adherents were extremely hard, and virtually implied the complete
surrender of national liberty. The terms of submission were finally
adjusted and agreed to on the 9th of February, 1304. It was stipulated
that their lives should be spared, and that they should retain their
lands, but subject to such fines as Edward might think fit to impose
upon them. The following persons were specially excluded from the
benefit of the above terms――Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow, Sir John
Soulis, the Steward of Scotland, Simon Fraser, William Wallace, David
de Graham, and Alexander de Lindsay. To all these men, except Wallace,
the chance of preserving their lives was offered on certain terms,
mostly stated periods of banishment from Scotland. “As for William
Wallace it is covenanted that he shall render himself up at the will
and mercy of the king, if it shall seem good to him.” It appears that
Edward was earnestly requested to offer reasonable terms to Wallace,
but he declined to listen to such a proposal. Shortly after the
surrender of Comyn and his adherents, Edward summoned a parliament to
meet him at St. Andrews in March; and he arrived at St. Andrews on the
11th of March and occupied the castle. In this meeting he intimated
that he had summoned to the parliament Sir William Wallace, Sir Simon
Fraser, and Sir William Oliphant, governor of Stirling Castle; and he
then announced that seeing they had not attended, therefore they should
be forfeited and outlawed. At his request parliament resolved that the
siege of Stirling should be actively prosecuted.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume II.; _Historical Documents of Scotland_,
Volume II., page 471; Palgrave’s _Documents_, pages 278‒284.
Preparations were at once begun for the siege of this fortress. Edward
appealed to his English treasurer for money, and to procure from York
the materials for producing Greek fire, namely, a horseload of cotton
thread, a load of quick sulphur, a load of saltpetre, and a load of
arrows feathered and ironed. By Edward’s orders the lead was stripped
from the refectory at St. Andrews and from the churches at Perth and
Dunblane. The Earl of Carrick, Robert Bruce, who had been serving
Edward actively for the past year or two, promised to grant for use in
the siege of Stirling Castle his great battering-ram which was lying at
Inverkip. War engines, missiles, and materials of every description for
the siege were in readiness, and Edward himself arrived at Stirling on
the 21st of April, and summoned Oliphant, the governor of the castle,
to surrender. But Oliphant declined to surrender and made a brave
defence. The siege continued from the 22nd of April to the 20th of July,
the King remaining at Stirling in order to urge on the operations. When
the governor of the castle surrendered, the garrison only numbered one
hundred and forty men, but Edward inflicted shameful indignities upon
these brave and faithful men. The governor, Oliphant, was sent to the
Tower of London, and the rest were despatched to various prisons in
England.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 966; Rogers’ _Book of Wallace_,
Volume II., pages 218‒223.
Edward directed special attention to the capture of Wallace, as he
was already proclaimed an outlaw. Immediately after the surrender of
Stirling Castle the King exhorted the men lately admitted to his peace
to exert themselves to the utmost to take Wallace, and promised that
those who secured him should receive some distinctive marks of royal
favour. Edward returned to England in December, 1304, but he continued
to issue proclamations for Wallace’s capture, with offers of a reward.
At the same time he carried on secret communications with those
whom he thought best fitted to execute his purpose. The man actually
instrumental, however, in the capture of Wallace was Sir John Menteith.
He was engaged in the Battle of Dunbar in 1296, where he was taken
prisoner, and confined in the castle of Nottingham; by consenting to
serve under Edward I. abroad he was released in 1297, and after the
Flanders campaign he returned to Scotland. He then joined the national
party, and possibly he might have fought under Wallace at the Battle
of Falkirk. At what time Menteith returned to Edward’s service has not
been ascertained, but in a commission dated at St. Andrews on the 20th
of March, 1304, he was then appointed Keeper of the Castle of Dumbarton
and Sheriff of the County. After the surrender of Stirling Castle it
appears that Wallace, with a single attendant, sought shelter in the
unfrequented spots of the counties of Stirling and Lanark. Whether
his refuge was within the sheriffdom of Dumbarton or not has not
been ascertained; and it seems that Menteith had formed the idea of
promoting his own interest by delivering Wallace into Edward’s hands.
In the district of Cadder, on the north-eastern border of Lanarkshire,
Wallace had taken shelter in a barn known as Robraystoun, and there
on the 5th of August, 1305, he was surprised by a party of English
soldiers, led by Menteith, at whose instance he was seized and
fettered.¹
¹ _Book of Wallace_, Volume II., pages 226‒229. “Among certain
memoranda in the Chapter House are these:――4. Cause to be
remembered the forty marks which should be given to a valet
who had watched William Wallace. 5. Item of the sixty marks
that ought to be given to the others; it is the king’s
will that these be divided among those persons who were
at the capture of the said William. 6. Item of land for J.
de Menteith, valued at £100.” _Ibid._, page 236. “Menteith
received from Edward on the 16th of June, 1306, the revenues
of the Earldom of Lennox, also the temporalities of the
bishopric of Glasgow, in the county of Dumbarton, of which
Bishop Wishart had been deprived. When Robert the Bruce
was, in 1306, prosecuting his patriotic labours, Menteith
undertook jointly with Sir Hugh Bisset to cut off by a
fleet his retreat from the Western Isles; and in July of
the following year he is described as, with some others,
guarding, on Edward’s behalf, the town of Ayr.” _Ibid._,
page 231.
Securely fettered Wallace was immediately conveyed to London under a
strong guard. Touching his trial and execution in London minute details
exist, which have been often printed, and it is quite unnecessary
to repeat them at length. He was tried for treason, which he never
committed, seeing that he never gave allegiance to Edward I., whom
he rightly regarded as a usurper and invader. Wallace was not allowed
to make any defence, but condemned and sentenced to be hanged and
drawn, with all the shocking and cruel formalities of the Norman law
of treason. The sentence was executed on the 23rd of August, 1305, and
that it might produce the desired effect “his body should be cut and
divided into four quarters, and the head set on the Bridge of London,
in sight of those passing both by land and water; and one quarter
suspended on the gibbet at Newcastle-on-Tyne, another quarter at
Berwick, a third quarter at Stirling, and a fourth quarter at Perth,
for the dread and chastisement of all that pass by and behold them.”
How far the intended end was served by such spectacles of extreme
barbarity subsequent history tells. Indeed, the story of the heroic
action and deeds of Wallace, heightened by his sacrifice in London,
became embalmed in the heart of the Scottish people, and his memory was
more intensely venerated as century after century passed. Recalling the
traditional incidents associated with the Cartland Crags, it has been
truly said:――
“Blest Freedom flourish’d in this wild,
When banish’d from each cultur’d spot.
Expiring Albin saw and smil’d
And all her wounds and woes forgot.”¹
Many poets have paid homage to Wallace, and the following simple lines
embody the national sentiment:――
“A fair renown, as years wear on,
Shall Scotland give her noblest son;
The course of ages shall not dim,
The love that she shall bear to him.”²
¹ Dr. Jamieson, editor of Blind Henry’s _Wallace_.
² Baillie’s _Metrical Legends_, page 78.
Edward I. was intently engaged in arranging his new form of government
for Scotland. He summoned a council of the Scotch nobles, clergy, and
the burghal communities, which met at Perth in March, 1305, and this
meeting was instructed to elect ten commissioners to represent Scotland
in the English Parliament; thus, four to be chosen by the nobles, four
by the clergy, and two by the burghal communities. These ten Scotch
commissioners attended a Parliament which met at London on the 15th
of September, 1305, and being joined by twenty-two commissioners from
the English Parliament, this body, acting in concert, framed the royal
ordinance for the government of Scotland. This document is elaborate,
and presents evidence of considerable intelligence and judgment; but
seeing that it never came into practical operation it is historically
unnecessary to expound it.¹
¹ The Ordinance for the government of Scotland was printed in
the first volume of the _Scots Acts of Parliament_.
After twelve years of incessant craft, bloodshed, and oppression,
closing with the execution of Wallace, Edward I. fancied that his
conquest of Scotland was at last complete. But a worthy successor to
Wallace immediately appeared upon the scene, and the shattered king,
worn with the toil of years, lived to see it all passing from his
grasp.
CHAPTER VI.
_War of Independence. Robert Bruce._
AS we have seen, the Earl of Carrick was assisting Edward I. in his
last campaign, and supplied him with a battering-ram for the siege of
Stirling Castle. His father, Robert Bruce of Annandale, died in the
spring of 1304, and he then succeeded to the large family estates in
England and in Scotland. Bruce was a young man, little over thirty
years, and hitherto had shown a rather vacillating character. As he was
the grandson of the Bruce who had fought out the contest in Edward’s
court for the Crown with the deposed Baliol, he had always looked
forward to the throne of Scotland. In June, 1304, he met with Bishop
Lamberton; they had a conversation together touching impending dangers,
and entered into a friendly covenant to resist their enemies. They
engaged to seek each other’s safety in their common affairs against
all persons opposed to them, both individually and by their adherents;
they also agreed that the one should not enter on any great undertaking
without consulting the other, and if the one became cognisant of
dangers impending over the other he should forewarn him, and use his
utmost efforts to avert the same. For the performance of the compact
they bind themselves to each other by oath, and under a penalty of ten
thousand pounds.¹ Considering the condition of Scotland at the time,
and the position of the two men, this compact possibly had in view some
attempt by Bruce to mount the throne and recover the kingdom. It seems
that the existence of this bond became known to Edward I., and Bruce,
when attending the English court, was questioned concerning it; he at
once saw that his life was in danger, and one morning he mounted his
horse and rode swiftly to Scotland.
¹ Palgrave’s _Documents_, Volume I., page 323‒325.
Bruce arrived at his castle of Lochmaben early in February, 1306. On
the 12th of February, as a freeholder of the county, he attended the
English judges who were then holding their courts at Dumfries, and
there he met the Red Comyn, the late guardian. Bruce and Comyn entered
the Grayfriars convent to have a private interview touching public
affairs, and their conversation waxed warm. Bruce referred to the
miserable state of Scotland, once an independent kingdom, and now
nothing but a province of England. He then proposed that Comyn should
take his lands and help him to be king; or, if he preferred it, Bruce
was to take his lands and assist him to be king. Comyn demurred, and
professed loyalty to King Edward I. Bruce charged him with betraying
important secrets of his; their talk became bitter and hot, and at last
Bruce drew his dagger and stabbed Comyn. He turned from the convent
and rushed into the street, shouting for a horse! His friends asked
if anything was amiss. “I doubt,” said Bruce, “I have slain Comyn.”
Instantly Kirkpatrick, one of his followers, ran into the convent and
slew the wounded man outright, and also killed his uncle, Sir Robert
Comyn.¹
¹ Palgrave’s _Documents_, page 322. Barbour’s _Bruce_. It
appears that in a meeting of the guardians and some of the
nobles held at Peebles, July, 1299, a scuffle occurred,
which originated in a proposal touching the property of
Wallace, who was then in France:――“And upon that, each of
these knights gave the lie to the other and they drew their
daggers; and the Earl of Buchan and Sir John Comyn thought,
because Sir David de Graham is with Master John Comyn,
and Malcolm Wallace with the Earl of Carrick, that some
quarrel was begun with intention to deceive them, and Master
John Comyn leaped on the Earl of Carrick and took him by
the throat, and the Earl of Buchan upon the Bishop of St.
Andrews, and they held them fast, until the Stewart and
others went between them and stopped the scuffle.” _National
Manuscripts_, Part II., Number 8.
Probably the murder of Comyn was unpremeditated, still it removed the
only competitor for the throne of Scotland whom Bruce had reason to
fear. Comyn had a claim to the Crown, as his mother was a sister of the
deposed John Baliol. He also claimed to be a descendant of Donald Bane,
a brother of Malcolm III., which would have given him a great advantage
among the people in any struggle between the two for the throne of
Scotland. But Bruce had rashly committed himself and could not recede;
he had assassinated the highest noble in the kingdom, stained the altar
with blood, brought down on his own head all the terrors of religion,
and the enmity of the kin and numerous followers of the dead earl.
Immediately after these tragic deeds Bruce drove the English judges and
officials out of Dumfries and beyond the Border. The news soon spread,
the people assumed a threatening attitude in Galloway, and many of
Edward’s officials fled from the kingdom. Bruce resolved on a bold step,
he mounted the throne, and was crowned at Scone on the 27th of March,
1306. But, as yet, his followers were not numerous; they consisted of
the Bishops of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Moray, and the Abbot of Scone;
his four young and stalwart brothers, his nephew, Thomas Randolph
of Strathdon, and his brother-in-law, Christopher Seton; John de
Strathbogie, Earl of Athole; and the Earls of Lennox and Menteith;
Gilbert Hay of Erroll and his brother Hugh, Nigel Campbell of Argyle,
David of Inchmarten, Robert Boyd of Kilmarnock, Sir John Somerville of
Linton, David Barclay of Cairns, Alexander Fraser, Sir James Douglas,
and Robert Fleming. Against this small party――the forlorn hope of
the Scottish nation――stood arrayed the mighty hosts of England, the
numerous followers of the Comyns, and many of the Scotch nobles.
When tidings of these events reached the ears of Edward I., he was
extremely wroth, and threatened dire vengeance. Orders with a sharp
and incisive ring were issued. It was proclaimed in all the cities and
towns of Scotland that all those in arms against the King should be
pursued by hue and cry, from city to city, from county to county, from
place to place, and taken dead or alive. All persons taken in arms
against Edward I. were to be hanged and beheaded, and all in any way
connected with the murder of Comyn were to be drawn and quartered. The
implacable rage of Edward runs through all the royal proclamations.
Another great invasion of Scotland was resolved on; the military force
of Yorkshire and Northumberland were ordered to muster immediately to
march against the rebellious Scots. He also invoked the aid of religion,
notwithstanding his former contempt of “Mount Zion and Jerusalem.”
Bruce’s estates were declared forfeited, and his execution was
determined on in the event of his capture. The advance army, under the
Earl of Pembroke, reached the doomed country in the spring of 1306, and
Edward himself, bracing up all his remaining energy, once more moved
northward; but his frailty rendered his progress very slow.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., pages 982, 995; Palgrave’s _Documents_,
pages 361‒363, 301‒318, _et seq._
Pembroke advanced on Perth, and on his way he captured Bishop Wishart
and sent him to Berwick. On reaching Perth, Pembroke occupied the town
and fortified it. Bruce and his party found that they could not face
the English army; but he encamped in the wood of Methven six miles from
Perth. On the 19th of June, Pembroke attacked Bruce, and after a severe
encounter, completely defeated him; he narrowly escaped capture, while
many of his followers were slain and others taken prisoners. Bruce with
two or three hundred of his followers retired into the forest of Athole.
Among the prisoners captured at Methven were Thomas Randolph, Sir John
Somerville, David of Inchmarten, Hugh Hay, and others; and Edward I.
ordered that the prisoners should be immediately executed, accordingly
they were hanged and quartered.¹
¹ Hemingford’s _Chronicles_, page 249; Barbour’s _Bruce_.
The desperate nature of the enterprise now appeared. Bruce and his
friends were pursued as outlaws, and they soon began to feel the
extreme miseries of their position. Bruce was forced to leave Athole
to save his followers from starvation; and with great difficulty he
moved by unfrequented tracks from Athole to Aberdeenshire. At Aberdeen
he was joined by his wife and other ladies; but on the approach of a
large body of the enemy, Bruce and his company betook themselves to
the mountains of Breadalbane. Amid these wilds they suffered extreme
privation. As food was scarce, they gathered wild berries, some of
them hunted, and others fished, in order to preserve their existence;
while their clothing was often in tatters, living day and night for
weeks and months exposed to the open air in these high altitudes. Bruce
with a number of his friends had reached the head of the Tay, and were
approaching Argyleshire, the district of the Lord of Lorne. This chief
was related through marriage to the Red Comyn, and naturally he was
eager to vent revenge on Bruce. Lorne at the head of a strong body of
his followers attacked Bruce and his small company in Strathfillan. A
severe encounter ensued; but Bruce’s company was overwhelmed by numbers
and fell back. Gilbert Hay of Erroll and Sir James Douglas were wounded,
and many of their horses were killed. To avert the total destruction of
his little band, Bruce commanded them to retreat through a narrow pass
while he brought up the rear himself, and repeatedly turned his horse
and drove back the assailants, till at last the pursuit of the enemy
ceased.¹
¹ Ibid.
Winter was approaching, and they could not then subsist in this
mountainous region. The Queen and her attendants were conveyed under
an escort of cavalry to the castle of Kildrummy. Bruce then had only
two hundred men on foot, and with these he resolved to seek refuge
in Cantyre or in some of the islands, Sir Neil Campbell being sent
forward to provide vessels and provisions for the voyage. The King
and his small company proceeded in the direction of Cantyre; but they
were reduced to the utmost extremities for want of provisions. While
wandering amongst the hills and woods in search of food, they met the
Earl of Lennox, who, since the battle of Methven, had heard nothing
of the fate of Bruce, and the King and Lennox feelingly embraced
each other. Lennox supplied his friends with provisions, and by his
assistance they reached Cantyre, where Neil Campbell rejoined them.
Angus, Lord of the Isles, welcomed Bruce and his followers, and treated
them all with great hospitality; he also gave them the castle of
Dunaverty to live in and enjoy themselves after their wanderings and
privations. So numerous were the emissaries of Edward I. and the Comyns,
and so alert in their efforts to capture Bruce, that he, with the
recent fate of Wallace before him, did not deem himself safe, even in
this castle, from the pursuit of his enemies. In the end of the year
1306, Bruce, with a few of his friends, passed over to the small isle
of Rathlin, on the northern coast of Ireland, and remained there during
the winter.
But ruin and death befell many of Bruce’s friends and supporters, as
the English troops scoured the country and seized all suspected persons.
The Bishop of Glasgow, as already mentioned, was imprisoned at an early
stage. Bishop Lamberton, of St. Andrews, and the Abbot of Scone, were
sent in fetters to England. Bruce’s wife and his daughter were captured
and imprisoned in England; the Countess of Buchan, who had dared to
assist at the coronation of Bruce, was taken to Berwick and placed
in a wooden cage, specially built for her, which hung in one of the
centre turrets of the castle. The English besieged and took the castle
of Kildrummy, and Nigel Bruce, the King’s brother, was sent in fetters
to Berwick, and there executed. The Earl of Athole and Sir Simon Fraser
were conveyed to London and executed as traitors; and their heads
were placed upon London Bridge beside that of Wallace. Sir Christopher
Seton, Sir Walter Logan, Bernard Mouat, Herbert Morham, Ralph Herries,
Thomas Bruce and Alexander Bruce, brothers of the King, these and many
others were executed with all the horrible and shocking cruelties of
the period. Further, many of the people were struck down and slain
without trial, evidence, or question, in any form; and for several
years a scene of bloodshed, enormous cruelty, and oppression, prevailed
throughout the kingdom.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 996; Hemingford’s _Chronicles_,
Volume I., page 247, _et seq._; Barbour’s _Bruce_.
In the spring of 1307, Sir James Douglas and Sir Robert Boyd, with
Bruce’s sanction, sailed from the island of Rathlin with a small band
of followers, and made a descent upon the island of Arran. They landed
during the night, and Douglas placed his men in ambush in the vicinity
of the Castle of Brodick. The following morning he attacked the escort
of a convoy which was proceeding with stores for the garrison, defeated
and scattered the escort, and thus secured a store of provisions, arms,
and clothing. The governor of the castle sent out a body of soldiers to
assist the escort, but they were repulsed by the Scots and driven back
to the castle. Douglas then retired to a prehistoric fort on a woody
spot in the neighbourhood; and soon after Bruce arrived with a company
of about two hundred men and joined Douglas. Bruce then despatched
one of his followers into the district of Carrick, to ascertain how
his own vassals were affected; but the report of this messenger was
disheartening. He informed Bruce that Lord Percy had a strong garrison
in Turnberry Castle, and many of his men stationed in the town;
that the people were dispirited, and that there was little hope of
assistance from them. Bruce seemed perplexed, and consulted with his
brother Edward, who said that he would pursue the enterprise. They
then attacked the English troops stationed in the village of Turnberry,
and defeated them. Three days after Bruce retired into the mountainous
range of Carrick; and being deprived of aid which he had expected from
Ireland, his position was perilous. His enemies and the emissaries of
Edward I. were constantly hunting him, and he had several very narrow
escapes. At Cumnock, in Ayrshire, he was joined by his friend Sir James
Douglas, who had collected a body of men in his own barony. With his
followers thus increased, Bruce determined to give a good account of
himself.
In the beginning of May 1307, Pembroke advanced into Ayrshire at the
head of three thousand cavalry, with the intention of extinguishing
Bruce. But the King in his wanderings had acquired some experience,
and he fixed on a position at Loudon Hill. After inspecting the ground,
he limited the space for the evolutions of the enemy’s cavalry, and
at the same time protected both his flanks, by three deep trenches on
each side of his position; beyond these trenches the ground was marshy.
Having thus prepared the ground, Bruce posted his six hundred spearmen,
and coolly awaited the attack of the English cavalry. On the 10th of
May, the English cavalry under Pembroke advanced in two lines; and the
first line at full gallop charged the Scotch spearmen, but they stood
firm and unhorsed many of their assailants. The cavalry reeled and
then broke, and retired in disorder upon the second line; the Scots
with their spears levelled, followed them at the double, and completely
defeated them. Pembroke fled to the castle of Ayr, and reported his
defeat. Bruce’s followers now began to have confidence in him, and from
this time he gradually gained ground. Three days after the encounter at
Loudon Hill, Bruce completely defeated a body of the English commanded
by the Earl of Gloucester. The result was that many of the Scots joined
Bruce.
The leading spirit of the conquest, Edward I., by short stages had
advanced within sight of Scotland; but the hand of the grim and
implacable enemy was upon him, and on the 7th of July 1307, he expired.
He had inflicted enormous suffering upon the Scots; and when his
feet were on the brink of the grave, the venom of his heart was not
appeased, for he then implored his son and barons to continue his
scheme of torturing the Scots. Edward II. was weak and vacillating. He
advanced to the outskirts of Ayrshire, and without effecting anything
of importance, he returned home. Shortly after he removed Pembroke from
the Guardianship of Scotland, and appointed the Earl of Richmond to the
office. Edward Bruce assailed the English in Galloway; while Sir James
Douglas expelled them from Douglasdale, and the forests of Jedburgh and
Selkirk.
Bruce crossed the Tay, and marched northward to Aberdeenshire, with the
object of reducing Comyn, the Earl of Buchan, who upheld the English
authority in this quarter of the kingdom. He was, however, attacked
by a severe illness, caused by the exposure and privation which he had
endured; and the war operations were somewhat delayed. The King’s army
proceeded by Inverurie, and in the march northward several skirmishes
took place between his troops and the followers of the Comyns. Bruce’s
army retired into Strathbogie, to obtain a supply of provisions and
to afford their leader some rest. When he had partly recovered from
his illness, they returned to Inverurie. At the same time, the Earl of
Buchan, with a force numbering upwards of a thousand men, had advanced
to Old Meldrum; and Comyn’s ally, Sir David de Brechin, with a small
party rapidly marched on Inverurie, and surprised some of Bruce’s
outposts. This was the signal for a general attack. The King instantly
rose from his bed, called for his horse, and mounting, led his army
direct to Old Meldrum. There he delivered a decisive attack upon the
Earl of Buchan, and utterly defeated his army, and slew and pursued
them for many miles. Bruce then proceeded with merciless severity to
waste and destroy the territories of the Comyns in Buchan, so that
their power was broken. The castles in the hands of the English were
attacked, and when taken they were levelled to the ground, in order to
prevent the enemy from again occupying them. The citizens of Aberdeen,
assisted by a few of Bruce’s followers, captured the castle and
expelled the English garrison. The castle of Forfar was taken and the
English garrison slain; after which the King marched southward.
The recovery of the kingdom steadily proceeded, and the Scots readily
submitted to the King; indeed the people soon recognised the abilities
of Bruce. On the 24th of February, 1309, in a general council held
at Dundee, the estates recognised Bruce’s right to the throne; at the
same time the clergy of Scotland formally proclaimed their recognition
of his title and their adherence to him as king. The document then
issued by the clergy is of great historic value, inasmuch as it boldly
asserted the constitutional rights of the people even in the choice of
the king. The main points of the document are the following:――“To all
the faithful, to whose knowledge the present writing shall come, the
bishops, abbots, priors, and the rest of the clergy of the kingdom of
Scotland.... Be it known to you all that when between the Lord John de
Baliol, long ago in fact raised to be King of Scotland by the King of
England, and the deceased Lord Robert de Bruce, grandfather of our Lord
Robert the King who now is, a ground of dispute had arisen which of
them, to wit, was nearest by right of blood to inherit and reign over
the Scotch people; the faithful people without doubt always held, as
from their predecessors and ancestors they had learned and believed to
be true, that the said Lord Robert, the grandfather, after the death
of King Alexander and his grand-daughter, the daughter of the King of
Norway, was the true heir, and ought, in preference to all others, to
be advanced to the government of the kingdom, although the enemy of
the human race sowing tares, by the various machinations and plots of
his rivals, which it would be tedious to narrate in detail, the thing
has turned contrariwise; on account of whose overthrow, and the want
of kingly authority, heavy calamities have thenceforth resulted to
the kingdom of Scotland and its inhabitants.... The people, therefore,
and the commons of the aforesaid kingdom of Scotland, worn out by the
stings of many tribulations, seeing the said Lord John, by the King
of England, on various pretexts, taken, imprisoned, stripped of his
kingdom and people, and the kingdom of Scotland by him also ruined and
reduced to slavery; laid waste by a mighty depopulation and overwhelmed
by the bitterness of frequent grief, desolated from the want of right
government, exposed to every danger, and given up to the spoiler, and
the people stripped of their goods, tortured by wars, led captive,
bound, and imprisoned; by immense massacres of the innocent, and by
continual conflagrations, oppressed, subjected and enslaved, and on
the brink of total ruin ... being no longer able to bear so many and
so great losses of things and persons more bitter than death, often
happening for want of a captain and faithful leader ... the said
Lord Robert, with the concurrence and consent of the said people, was
chosen to be king, that he might reform the deformities of the kingdom,
correct what required correction, and direct what needed direction;
and having been by their authority made King of Scots, with him the
faithful people of the kingdom will live and die ... and if any one on
the contrary claim right to the kingdom in virtue of letters in past
times, sealed and containing the consent of the people and the commons,
know ye that all this took place, in fact, by force and violence,
which could not at the time be resisted, and through multiplied fears,
bodily tortures, and various terrors, enough to confound the senses and
distract the minds of perfect men.... We, therefore, the bishops and
the rest of the clergy, acting under no compulsion, knowing that the
premises are based on truth, and cordially approving the same, have
made due fealty to our Lord Robert, the illustrious King of Scotland,
and we publicly declare that the same ought to be rendered to him and
his heirs by our successors for ever.”¹ Seeing that Bruce was then
under the excommunication of the Pope for the slaughter of Comyn, this
announcement of the Scotch clergy was a great accession of strength to
his cause.
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part II., Number 17.
In the spring of 1309 there was an attempt to make peace, but the Scots
were not inclined for peace till the English were expelled from all
the castles and the territories of Scotland. Edward II., in September
1310, entered Scotland with a great army, but Bruce wisely avoided a
battle. After driving off their cattle and sheep into the narrow glens,
the Scots retired to the woods and mountains; while the invading army
advanced to Renfrew, looking intently for an enemy to conquer, but
in vain. The English soon began to suffer for want of provisions and
forage, and without effecting anything of the slightest moment, the
army retreated to Berwick. Several of Edward’s subsequent expeditions
came to a similar end. In the summer of 1311 Bruce thought that his
turn to invade the territories of the enemy had at last come. He
accordingly marched his army into the northern counties of England and
plundered the country, levying heavy contributions; and having remained
for eight days, he returned home laden with booty.¹
¹ _Chronicles of Hexham_, Appendix, pages 58, 59.
Bruce then resolved to besiege Perth, which still remained in the bands
of the English. The town was fortified by a strong wall, and surrounded
by a deep moat full of water. The garrison made a brave and determined
resistance, and for six weeks repelled all the efforts of the besiegers.
But Bruce having ascertained and marked the shallowest part of the
moat, marched off to a considerable distance, as if he had abandoned
the siege. Ten days after, the king, at the head of a picked party
of his men, furnished with scaling ladders, returned to Perth during
the night, and they then waded through the moat, scaled the wall, and
surprised the garrison in their beds. The town was soon taken, and
the fortifications were completely demolished in accordance with the
policy of the king. The lives of the English garrison were spared; and
the Earl of Strathern, who then served under the English, was taken
prisoner. On renewing his allegiance to Bruce, the Earl was pardoned.
Shortly after the castles of Dumfries and Linlithgow were captured;
and on the 7th of March, 1312, the castle of Roxburgh was taken by
Douglas, and by the orders of the king both the castle and the town
were levelled to the ground. The Castle of Edinburgh, which had been
for nineteen years in the possession of the English, on the 14th
of March the same year, after a desperate struggle, was captured by
Randolph. Edward Bruce had expelled the English from Galloway and
Nithsdale, and demolished the castles in these districts; he also
took the castles of Rutherglen, and Dundee, and at last besieged the
Castle of Stirling――the citadel of the kingdom. The English Governor,
Mowbray, defended the castle with great determination, but at length
his provisions were becoming exhausted, and he then made an agreement
with Edward Bruce to surrender it, unless it should be relieved, before
the 24th of June, 1314. This agreement was very favourable to England,
inasmuch as it compelled the Scots to peril the fate of the kingdom on
a pitched battle.
As we have seen, the siege of Stirling Castle had cost Edward I.
enormous labour, and he deemed its capture one of his greatest
achievements. It was then the most important stronghold in Scotland,
and if England intended to retain a hold of the country she must
relieve it within the appointed time. So another great invasion was
resolved on, and great preparations were made. The whole feudal array
of England was called out, and levies drawn from Wales and Ireland;
vast quantities of all kinds of provisions for the troops were
collected from all quarters of England, and the army was well provided
with cars and waggons for the transport of the baggage, tents, and arms.
Edward II. entered Scotland in June, 1314, at the head of the largest
and best equipped army that had ever marched from England; for in all
it numbered one hundred thousand fighting men, one half of them cavalry,
who were then considered the chief arm of strength in battle.
To face this mighty host the Scots made a supreme effort. Bruce ordered
his force to muster in the Torwood, between Falkirk and Stirling, where
he found that his fighting men only numbered thirty thousand infantry,
and five hundred cavalry. He resolved to fight on foot, and prepared
to guard and strengthen his position to the utmost. After a careful
examination of the ground he determined to dispose his army in four
divisions――three of them forming a front line, inclining to the
south-east, facing the advance of the enemy, the fourth division being
held in reserve and placed behind the centre. The formation of the
Scottish spearmen was a series of solid circles, so inclined in front
as most effectively to resist the shock of cavalry charges: it was
similar to Wallace’s circles at the Battle of Falkirk. The right flank
of Bruce’s line was well protected by the rugged ground and the broken
banks of the Bannock burn, while his left wing was admirably secured by
a series of trenches and pits, which effectively limited the space for
the movements of the enemy’s cavalry. By this limitation of the space
in front of his line, Bruce hampered the development of the cavalry
charges of the English, which gave him a great advantage. The right
wing of the Scots was commanded by Edward Bruce, the centre by Randolph,
Earl of Moray, and the left wing by Sir James Douglas and the Steward
of Scotland, the reserve or fourth division was under the command of
the King himself, and it consisted of the men of the Isles, Argyle, and
Cantyre, accompanied by Angus, the Lord of the Isles, and Bruce’s own
vassals of Carrick; and there also the five hundred cavalry, under Sir
Robert Keith, was stationed, ready to execute their special duty, when
the proper moment came.
On the 23rd of June the enemy appeared, and made a bold attempt to
throw a body of cavalry into the castle of Stirling, but they were
repulsed by Randolph, the Earl of Moray. Bruce asked his leaders
whether they thought it best to fight or to retreat, and they
unanimously declared that they were determined to fight and to abide
the issue of the conflict. The Scots then made all the necessary
arrangements for the battle, passing the night under arms on the field.
At night the Mayne of St. Fillan, that is, the enshrined arm of the
saint, was shown to the Scottish army. At daybreak, the 24th of June,
the Abbot of Inchaffary celebrated mass on an eminence in front of
the army. He then passed along the line and in a few words exhorted
the Scots to fight for their rights and liberty. After this they
breakfasted, and then placed themselves under their different banners
in battle array.
The mighty host of Edward II. was early in motion on that memorable
Monday morning, and the English began the battle by the advance of
a body of lancers under the command of the Earls of Hereford and
Gloucester. The lancers charged at full gallop on the right wing of
the Scots, but the spearmen firmly withstood the impetuous onset of
the enemy, and some of the lancers were pitched from their saddles
and slain. The main body of the enemy’s cavalry rapidly advanced
and charged the Scottish centre, which for a moment appeared to be
engulphed amid the seething mass of the English. The whole Scottish
line was soon assailed and wrestling in a hand-to-hand combat with
the enemy. The battle raged with the utmost fury, while the English
attempted by desperate charges, many times repeated, to break through
the Scottish spearmen, but in vain. At this all-important hour they
thought of the home of their fathers, and their native hearths;
and remembering, too, the many grinding injuries, galling outrages,
stinging insults, cruel and unmitigated suffering inflicted upon
them during long years of dire oppression, they repelled every attack
with steady valour and slew heaps upon heaps of their assailants. The
English bowmen and archers, who supported the cavalry charges, were
beginning to gall the ranks of the Scottish spearmen; but Bruce sent
Sir Robert Keith with five hundred cavalry to charge the left flank of
the archers, and, as they had no weapons to defend themselves at close
quarters, they were instantly broken and scattered in all directions,
and so completely cowed that they declined to return to their posts.
In front the battle continued to rage with unabated fury, but with
obvious disadvantage to the English. Seeing the enemy flagging, Bruce
encouraged his leaders to strive on, assuring them that the victory
would soon be won. He then brought up the reserve, all the four
divisions of his army being now engaged. The English fought bravely and
determinedly, making many but unavailing attempts to pierce through the
front of the spearmen, and at every successive charge losing more men
and horses, and falling into greater confusion. Then was heard afar the
clashing and crashing of armour, the commingled whooping and shouting
of the war-cries, and withal the agonising moans and groans of the
wounded and dying; many masterless horses were madly running hither and
thither, heedless of friend or foe; the ground was streaming with blood
and strewn with shreds of armour, broken spears, arrows, and pennons,
rich scarfs and armorial bearings torn and soiled with blood and clay.
The Scots continued to gain ground, and pressed with increasing energy
upon the confused and tottering mass of the enemy, rending the air with
shouts of “On them! on them! they fall!” The English gave way slowly
along the whole line. Bruce perceiving this, placed himself at the
head of the reserve, and raising his war-cry, which was repeated by the
Lord of the Isles, they pressed with redoubled and unbearable fury on
the falling ranks of the enemy. This onset, well seconded by the other
divisions of the army, decided the fate of the day. The English broke
into disjointed squadrons and began to quit the field, and in spite of
all the efforts of their leaders to rally them and restore order, they
dispersed and fled headlong in all directions. King Edward stood gazing
intently upon the fatal field till he saw that all was lost, when he
fled in utter bewilderment. The struggle was over, the enemy in flight,
and the victory complete. Glory to the heroes who fought, and bled, and
fell on Bannockburn. Peace to the ashes of Robert Bruce, who skilfully
planned, ably led, and won the field on that memorable day; while
Scotsmen’s blood runs warm and human sympathies endure, the nation’s
heart will throb over the remembrance of Bannockburn.
Thirty thousand of the English fell upon the field, and the standards
of twenty-seven barons were laid in the dust, their owners being slain.
Two hundred knights and seven hundred esquires were among the fallen.
The prisoners consisted of twenty-two barons, sixty knights, and a
multitude of the lower ranks. Although only two men of note, Sir Walter
Ross and Sir William Vipont, were slain on the Scottish side, nearly
four thousand of the rank and file fell on the field. A large number
of the English must have been trampled to death by their own cavalry,
especially after the confusion in their lines began. For though the
Scottish spearmen stood in their positions like a rock so long as the
issue of the battle was doubtful, whenever Bruce placed himself at the
head of the reserve there was then an instantaneous forward movement
of the whole line, and a series of successive charges were made upon
the confused and entangled mass of the enemy, and it seems to have been
then that the greater part of the English were killed. Edward II. fled
by Linlithgow and thence to Dunbar, escorted by five hundred cavalry,
who were pursued all the way by Douglas at the head of sixty horsemen.
There was no rallying point after the battle, and Edward escaped from
Dunbar to Berwick in a fishing-boat.
Bruce showed a noble forbearance in the hour of victory, and treated
his fallen enemies and the prisoners with much respect and humanity. In
this he exhibited a striking contrast to the cruel and rancorous policy
of the Edwards. Of course some of the prisoners who were rich, paid
large sums of money for their ransom. The enormous spoil of the English
camp fell into the hands of the Scots, amongst which was the military
chest containing the money for the payment of the troops, and the
privy seal of Edward II. Mowbray, the governor, surrendered Stirling
Castle the day after the battle, according to the agreement, and
he then entered into the service of Bruce. The Earl of Hereford had
taken refuge in the castle of Bothwell, which, after a short siege,
surrendered to Edward Bruce; he was exchanged for Bruce’s queen and
daughter, and his sister Christina, Bishop Wishart of Glasgow, and the
Earl of Mar.
The Battle of Bannockburn was not only one of the greatest events in
the history of Scotland, but it was also one of the greatest events in
the history of Britain. Its immediate effects were obvious; while its
results have been continuously felt in the internal history of Britain
to the present time, and will continue to be felt throughout all time;
as it contributed an element to human freedom which in its essence can
never be lost.
After the Battle of Bannockburn, Bruce’s chief aim was to bring the
English government to equitable terms of peace, but they refused to
treat him as a king. The result of this was a succession of invasions
and border raids which, for many years, kept both countries in a state
of turmoil; for the Scots naturally resorted to a convincing mode of
showing the advantages which they had gained, and they crossed the
Border in force and plundered and wasted the northern counties of
England. This was carried to such extremities that England became
anxious for peace, but the Scots would listen to it only on the
condition of the full acknowledgment of the independence of the kingdom.
The English were still extremely loth to recognise this; and Edward
tried the weapons of spiritual warfare and applied to the Pope for a
pacifying Bull, which was issued in the beginning of the year 1317.
This papal document was addressed to the illustrious Edward, King of
England, and the noble Robert de Bruce, conducting himself as King
of Scotland; it ordered the observance of a truce between England and
Scotland for two years. Two cardinals appeared in England as the papal
legates to enforce the observance of the truce, but Bruce declined to
observe it or to treat with the representatives of the Pope unless he
was addressed as King of Scotland. He told them that he would listen
to no Papal Bulls until he had taken Berwick. Bruce pushed on the siege
of Berwick, and it surrendered in the end of March, 1318. The Scots
then invaded Northumberland, and took the castles of Wark, Harbottle,
and Mitford. They advanced into Yorkshire, plundered the country, and
levied contributions, returning home laden with booty, driving their
prisoners before them like a flock of sheep.¹
¹ Walsingham’s _Chronicles_, Volume I., page 142, _et seq._;
_Chronicles of Hexham_, Volume I., page 59, _et seq._;
_Fœdera_, Volume II., pages 317, 340.
The two papal legates in England excommunicated Bruce and his adherents.
Owing, however, to the keen national sympathies of the Scotch clergy,
this had little effect in Scotland.
In December 1318, Robert I. assembled a parliament at Scone, in which
a number of wise laws were passed. Acts were passed touching the
administration of justice, the organisation and mustering of the army,
and the freedom of the Church. The King commanded that the old and
common law of the kingdom should be rightly administered to rich and
poor alike. Acts relating to cattle-lifting, and to the salmon-fishing
were passed. It was enacted that every man who had goods of the value
of one cow, should arm himself with a good spear, or with a bow and
a sheaf of twenty-four arrows. An act was passed, which prohibited
all persons holding fiefs in Scotland from sending money or rents out
of the kingdom, under severe penalties. This parliament settled the
succession to the throne. In the event of the King dying without a
lawful male heir, Robert, the son of the Princess Marjory, should
succeed to the crown and kingdom; and in the event of the succession
falling to a minor, Randolph, Earl of Moray, should be appointed tutor
to the heir and guardian of the kingdom, and, failing him, Sir James
Douglas. The rule of succession was then settled thus:――“The male
nearest to the King at his death, in the direct line of descent, should
succeed to the Crown, and, failing such, then the nearest female in
the same line; and, failing the direct line, then the nearest male in
the collateral line, respect always being had to the right of blood by
which the last king reigned.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
105‒114.
Edward II. attempted to retake Berwick, but failed. To divert Edward
from the siege of Berwick, the Scots marched into Yorkshire and wasted
the country. This continual warfare was ruinous to both kingdoms; and
on the 21st of December 1319, a truce was concluded for two years.
About this time the Pope renewed his excommunication of Bruce and his
adherents: many denunciatory edicts had been issued from Rome against
Bruce and Scotland since he mounted the throne, and England had done
all that she could to increase their number and to enforce them.
The immaculate Edward II. pretended that he could not treat with an
excommunicated man like Bruce without a papal dispensation. Thus
obstacles were constantly thrown in the way of peace, and the policy of
King Robert was greatly hampered. At the same time, it was keenly felt
that the attitude of the King and the nation towards the head of the
Church was unsatisfactory. Therefore it was resolved by a parliament,
which met in the Abbey of Arbroath in April 1320, to prepare an address
to the Pope, and present to him the real state of the nation. This
address is of much historic and constitutional importance, and may be
quoted at some length. After referring to the antiquity of the kingdom
and its long line of kings, the conversion of the nation by Saint
Andrew, and the many favours which preceding popes had granted to the
kingdom, it proceeds:――
“So that our nation under their protection has hitherto continued
free and peaceful, until that prince, to wit, the King of the English,
Edward, the father of him who now is, under the semblance of a
friend and ally, in a most unfriendly way harassed our kingdom, then
without a head, and our people conscious of no guilt, and at that
time unaccustomed to wars: and the injuries, slaughters and deeds of
violence, plunderings, burnings, imprisonments of bishops, spoliations
and murders of men of religion, and other outrages, which this prince
perpetrated on the people, sparing no age or sex, religion or order,
no one could describe or fully understand but he who has learned it
from experience. From these innumerable evils, by the help of Him who,
after wounding, heals and restores to health, we were freed by our most
gallant prince and king, Lord Robert, who, for the delivering of his
people and heritage from the enemies’ hands, like another Joshua, has
cheerefully endured toil, fatigue, hardship, and danger. The Divine
Providence, the laws and customs of the kingdom which we will maintain
till death, the right of succession, and the due consent and assent
of all the people, have made him our prince and king. To him we are
obliged and resolved to adhere in all things, both on account of his
right and his merits, as the person who has restored the people’s
safety, and will defend their liberty. But, if this prince should leave
those principles which he has so nobly pursued, and consent that we
or our kingdom be subjected to the King or people of England, we will
immediately endeavour to expel him as our enemy and the subverter of
his own and our rights, and make another king who would defend our
liberties; for, so long as one hundred of us remain alive, we will
never consent in any way to subject ourselves to the English. Since it
is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours, but liberty alone that we
fight and contend for, which no good man will lose but with his life.
For these reasons, Reverend Father and Lord, we earnestly beseech and
entreat your Holiness, ... to deign to admonish and exhort the King of
England to rest satisfied with his own dominions, seeing that of old
England was enough for seven kings or more, to let us live in peace
in our small kingdom of Scotland, beyond which we have no habitation,
and desire nothing but our own, ... if your Holiness do not implicitly
believe these things, but trusting too much to the reports of the
English, and thus continue to favour them to our destruction, we must
believe that the Most High will lay to your charge all the loss of life,
the ruin of souls, and other evils which they will inflict on us and we
on them.... We commit the defence of our cause to the Supreme King and
Judge, casting our care on Him and firmly trusting that He will give
courage to us and bring our enemies to nought.”¹
¹ _National Manuscripts_, Part II., Number 24.
This spirited and constitutional address had an immediate effect at the
papal court; the severe measures against Scotland were suspended for
some time. Sir Adam Gordon and another baron were sent as ambassadors
to the papal court, and the Pope consented to address Bruce by
the title of the King of Scotland. But no final settlement of the
difficulty was obtained. In September 1320, commissioners were
appointed by England, empowered to treat with Scotland for peace; but
it appeared that Edward II. and his government were not sincere, as
they shortly after announced their intention to make peace by force of
arms.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume II., pages 431, 481.